To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Monroe connector/bypass from near I-485 at US 74 to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, federal aid project no. STP-NHF-74(90), WBS no. 34533.1.1TA1, STIP project number R-3329/R-2559 : administrative action, final supplemental final environmental impact statement

Monroe connector/bypass from near I-485 at US 74 to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, federal aid project no. STP-NHF-74(90), WBS no. 34533.1.1TA1, STIP project number R-3329/R-2559 : administrative action, final supplemental final environmental impact statement

154244.pdf
[29.52 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:

Adobe Reader

APPENDIX C APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX C
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE INFORMATION
 Review for Potential On-Site Mitigation (ESI, February 2010) Page C-1
 On-Site Mitigation Feasibility Assessment (Atkins, November 2011) Page C-16
 NCEEP Mitigation Credits Page C-24
 Carolina Heelsplitter Mitigation Page C-25
This page was intentionally left blank.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Carl Gibilaro, PE
PBS&J
FROM: Paul Petitgout
DATE: February 12, 2010
RE: Review for Potential On-Site Mitigation
Monroe Connector/Bypass
STIP R-3329 and R-2559
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
______________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this memorandum is to document potential on-site mitigation opportunities
within the project study area to possibly aid in meeting the compensatory mitigation requirements
of the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass. For purposes of this memorandum, “on-site” is
defined as an area in the vicinity of the preferred alternative, extending from the US 74/I-485
interchange near the town of Matthews in Mecklenburg County, to between the towns of
Wingate and Marshville along US 74 in Union County.
Site Selection Methodology
Potential restoration sites were identified by examining aerial photography in areas where
wetlands and streams were found to be coincident with disturbed land uses. Based on aerial
photography interpretation, areas judged to have restoration/enhancement potential were
recorded and those areas without potential were discounted. Specific methodology and data used
in identifying wetland and stream restoration sites are described separately in this section. Aerial
photography used in the identification of all restoration/enhancement sites was provided by
PBS&J. The aerial photography, in concert with other data sets including soils (SSURGO
database), hydrology, contour data (NCDOT), and county parcel data were used to locate the
potential mitigation areas.
Site selection criteria were developed with consideration for guidance from the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2003) and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP 2004). The following guidelines were generally observed:
C-1
2
Stream Restoration/Enhancement
• Stream projects must have a minimum of 50 feet conservation easement on both sides
of the stream for the entire project length. Easements are measured from the top of
the stream bank on both sides of the stream. The easement may be wider if there is
room for additional planting (up to 200 feet from the top on either side of the stream)
or if there is a wetland component to the project (no easement width limit).
o One side of stream must be free of utilities.
o Streams with a utility on one side must have a 50 foot easement in addition to
any existing utility easement. The width of the utility cannot count towards
the 50 foot requirement.
• The stream segment proposed for restoration must be greater than or equal to 2,000
linear feet in length; however, exceptions may be made under certain circumstances.
There is no maximum length for a stream project. Stream restoration opportunities
that are less than 2,000 linear feet, but involve relocation of the existing stream as a
result of the proposed roadway, were also considered.
• Less than 10 square miles drainage area (typically 1st and 2nd order streams, 3rd order
streams in some cases), and no greater than a 3rd order stream.
• Proposed stream segments can be perennial or intermittent as indicated on USGS 24K
Quadrangle Maps and/or in the NRCS Soil Surveys. No more than 50 percent of the
proposed restoration or enhancement project can be intermittent.
• Proposed stream segments cannot generally occur over more than three property
parcels that are under different ownership.
Wetland Restoration/Enhancement
• Hydric soils must be present (might be relic).
• Original wetland hydrology is altered by ditching, tile drains, filling, or other means
caused by human influences.
• Proposed wetland restoration area lacks appropriate wetland vegetation.
• Minimum of 2 acres (unless associated with a stream project) in size, but no
maximum.
• Site is not comprised entirely of invasive vegetation species (i.e. manageable within
reason).
After identification of potential mitigation opportunities, sites were further evaluated in the field.
Field evaluations at prospective mitigation sites were performed over the course of two days by
staff with extensive experience in mitigation implementation. Evaluations included an
C-2
3
assessment of soils, hydrology, vegetative cover, and landscape/watershed characteristics. Sites
were evaluated with consideration for an existing buffer and proximity to existing jurisdictional
systems. Notes were collected regarding species composition, soil matrix and chroma, and any
site constraints (e.g. active farming, culverts, utilities). Site photos were also collected.
Based on this review, ESI indentified over 25 sites, totaling approximately 2,000 acres that
potentially contain stream mitigation opportunities. Of the 25 sites that had mitigation potential,
21 of them were not recommended because they violated one or more of the guidelines listed
above. Four of the sites located during this review are considered viable mitigation opportunities
and are described below (Table 1), and their general locations depicted on Figure 1. It should be
noted that, in general, the mitigation opportunities extended across multiple parcels, which
makes procuring these areas as potential mitigation sites much more difficult. However, all of
the sites selected for review contain no more than three ownerships.
Table 1. Parcel Data for Selected Mitigation Opportunities.
PIN Owner Mailing Address Acreage Mitigation Site Number
M7081003
07081003
Vance Adam Sherin (and
others) –Heirs
7216 Oak Spring Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079
45.3
45.3 Site 1
07081002
Vance Adam Sherin (and
others) – Heirs
7403 Stinson-Hartis Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079 32.2 Site 1
K7078011 Crosland – Fairhaven LLC
227 W. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 84.6 Site 1
07078012C Kathleen Bowden
3725 Morningstar Drive
Mathews, NC 28105 17.1 Site 1
07027033 90
Carlton Tyson (and
others), Trustee
PO Box 748
Monroe, NC 28111 60.7 Site 2
07027033A Franklin W. Howey, Jr.
PO Box 429
Monroe, NC 28111 37.0 Site 2
08303014 Billy F. Acycoth
2211 White Store Road
Monroe, NC 28112 38.3 Site 3
08273001
Thomas Ray & Judy H.
Poplin
3310 Poplin Road
Monroe, NC 28110 182.0 Site 3
02211024
02211024 H
Thomas E. & Sarah H.
Traywick
PO Box 131
Wingate, NC 28174
16.4
38.5 Site 4
02211024 G NCDOT
206 Charter Street
Albemarle, NC 28001 66.8 Site 4
Following field evaluations, ten parcels were found that contain opportunities for stream
mitigation. These parcels are grouped into 4 sites (Sites 1-4) and are described below. Figures
and photographs for each site are also provided. All of the recommended sites will require
additional analysis and feasibility studies to determine the full mitigation potential.
Site 1: Oak Spring Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement
Site one (Figure 2, Photo Plate 1), the Oak Spring Road Site, is located approximately 2,500 feet
north of the intersection of Oak Spring Road and Stinson-Hartis Road, in western Union County.
The site consists of four tax parcels, two of which are under the same ownership. The potential
mitigation area consists of a severely degraded, 2,000 foot stream reach of North Fork Crooked
Creek. Cattle operations on this property have severely degraded the overall stability and water
quality of this reach of North Fork Crooked Creek. Stream enhancement potential exists due to
the reach’s degraded dimension and profile along with its non-existent riparian buffer. Riffles
C-3
4
and pools appear to be ill-formed and mid-channel bars are also forming, causing this stream
reach to become more unstable.
Stream enhancement techniques that could possibly be utilized for this reach include (but are not
limited to) bank stabilization, the use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream profile,
construction of bankfull benches (where appropriate), the planting of a riparian buffer, and
exclusion of the cattle from the restored riparian buffer area through fencing. No contact has
been initiated with the landowner(s). Additional analysis and feasibility studies will be required
to determine if stream mitigation activities are both practical and cost effective for this site.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5, depending on
the range of techniques that are prescribed for a particular site. With this range of multipliers in
mind, a stream reach of approximately 2,000 linear feet would generate approximately 800 to
2,000 stream mitigation units (SMU). The USACE, in conjunction with NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine the
mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.
Site 2: Rocky River Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement
Site two (Figure 3, Photo Plate 2) is located approximately 3,000 feet north of the intersection of
Rocky River Road and Secrest Shortcut Road. The site consists of two tax parcels that total
approximately 97.8 acres. The current land use would be characterized as cultivated agricultural
land. The site contains approximately 1,800 linear feet of perennial stream and 1,800 linear feet
of intermittent stream that would be available for mitigation. Both reaches can be generally
described as having relatively steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The
stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained buffer between the
stream and the cultivation activities.
Mitigation potential within Site 2 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 1,800 linear feet of perennial stream and 1,800 linear feet of intermittent stream.
Stream enhancement approaches that are appropriate for the perennial and intermittent reaches of
Site 2 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a bankfull benches (when necessary), the
use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream dimension and profile, and the planting a
riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability, increase channel shading, and provide
travel corridors for wildlife.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 3,600 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,440 to 3,600 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.
Site 3: Poplin Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement
Site three (Figure 4, Photo Plate 3) is located approximately 2,500 feet north of the intersection
of Poplin Road and Secrest Shortcut Road. The site consists of two tax parcels that total
C-4
5
approximately 220.3 acres. The current land use would be characterized as cultivated
agricultural land. The site contains approximately 4,225 linear feet of perennial stream that
would be available for mitigation. This reach can be generally described as having relatively
steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The stream banks are eroded in
some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained riparian area between the stream and the
cultivated agricultural land.
Mitigation potential within Site 3 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 4,225 linear feet of perennial stream. Stream enhancement approaches that are
appropriate for this perennial reach on Site 3 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a
bankfull benches (when necessary), the use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream
dimension and profile, and the planting a riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability,
increase channel shading, and provide travel corridors for wildlife.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 4,225 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,690 to 4,225 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.
Site 4: Poplin Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement
Site four (Figure 5, Photo Plate 4) is located approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of
Phifer Road and Forest Hills School Road. The site consists of three tax parcels that total
approximately 121.7 acres. The current land use would be characterized as pasture land. The
site contains approximately 425 linear feet of perennial stream and 2,100 linear feet of
intermittent stream that would be available for mitigation. Both reaches can be generally
described as having relatively steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The
stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained buffer between the
stream and the adjacent pasture land.
Mitigation potential within Site 4 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 425 linear feet of perennial stream and 2,100 linear feet of intermittent stream.
Stream enhancement approaches that are appropriate for the perennial and intermittent reaches of
Site 4 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a bankfull benches (when necessary), the
use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream dimension and profile, cattle exclusion fencing,
and the planting a riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability, increase channel
shading, and provide travel corridors for wildlife.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 2,525 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,010 to 2,525 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.
C-5
6
Wetland Mitigation Opportunities
During the review for potential wetland and stream mitigation sites, no wetlands sites were
revealed that met the site selection criteria described above. There may be the potential for
wetland mitigation created through the stream mitigation opportunities, but the amount would be
small (potentially less than 0.25 acre).
Literature Cited
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2004. Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 12 pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE Wilmington
District, Regulatory Branch. 26 pp + appendices.
Acknowledgement
ESI would like to acknowledge PBS&J for providing the template for this technical
memorandum.
C-6
kj
kj
kj
kj
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
US-74
NC-75
NC-84
NC-200
US-601
NC-205
NC-207
NC-218
NC-522
NC-16
NC-200
US-74
US-74
NC-200
US-601
NC-218
UUNNIIONN
SSTTAANNLLYY
MEECCKKLL EENNBBUURRG
CCAABBAARRRRUUSS
Potential On-Site Mitigation Overview
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 1.5 3
Miles
kj Sites*
Corridor Boundary*
Major Roads
County Boundaries
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
1
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers.
*Location and Extent is Approximate.
C-7
North Fork Crooked Creek
S008c
S028a
S012b
S032
S010
S011
S012a
S013d
S029c
S013a
S029b
S029a
S013b
S008c
W005
P03
P04
W020
K7078011
07081002
M7081003
K7081003
07078012C
PX04
OAK SPRING RD
STINSON HARDIS RD
STEVENS MILL RD
STRAND DR
FAIR SKY DR
BLUE IRIS DR
OSCAR ROBINSON DR
PESCA LN
WHITE OAK LN
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 300 600
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
2
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers. *Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 1
C-8
Site Photographs
Union County, North Carolina
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 1
Monroe Connector-Bypass
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate1.cdr
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
(704) 523-7225
(704) 523-7226 Fax
Photo 1: View of North Fork Crooked Creek and adjacent pastureland comprising Site 1.
Photo 2: View of eroding banks and extensive sediment deposition within Site 1.
C-9
South Fork Crooked Creek
UT to South Fork Crooked Creek
S047
S055
S051a
S052b
S054
S056c
S056b
S057b
S052c
S058c
S051c
S050a
S058d
S051b
S047
S047
P24
P18
W042
P23
W054
W036
P26
P22
W053
P19
W040c
P20
P25
W052
P21
P17 W049
W040d
W050
W040a
W038
W039
W037
W041
W040b
07027033 90
07027033A
ROCKY RIVER RD
SECREST SHORT CUT RD
HAYWOOD RD
CREEKSIDE DR
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 300 600
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
3
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers. *Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 2
C-10
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 1
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate1.cdr
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
(704) 523-7225
(704) 523-7226 Fax
Photo 1: View of North Fork Crooked Creek and adjacent pastureland comprising Site 1.
Photo 2: View of eroding banks and extensive sediment deposition within Site 1.
C-11
UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek
UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek
S064e
S068a
S070b
S071
S066b
S068d
S064c
S064d
S069
S064h
S068c
S068b
S064g
S067b
S074b
S064i
S070a
S064f
S064e
P35
P38
W074
P37
P36
P39
W070a
W071
P29
W068b
W072
W069b
W073b
w073a
08273001
08273001
08303014
08303014C
POPLIN RD
SECREST SHORT CUT RD
WILLIS LONG RD
CLEAR CREEK DR
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 300 600
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
4
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers. *Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 3
C-12
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 3
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate3.cdr
3
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
(704) 523-7225
(704) 523-7226 Fax
Photo 5: View of channelized UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek and adjacent agricultural field
within Site 3.
Photo 6: View of southwestern tributary exhibiting severe bank erosion and non-existent
riparian buffer within Site 3.
C-13
UT to Negro Head Creek
S161c
S161b
S164d
S164c
S161a
S176b
S172a
S162
S164a
S178
W176
W178
W197
W196
W192
W190
W193
W178
W177
W195
W205
W198
W191
W194
02211024H
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
WX214
WX177
WX194
SX162z
US 74 HWY
PHIFER RD
FOREST HILLS SCHOOL RD
PHIFER CIR
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 300 600
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
5
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers. *Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 4
C-14
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 4
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate4.cdr
4
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
(704) 523-7225
(704) 523-7226 Fax
Photo 7: View of unstable channel and adjacent pastureland within Site 4.
Photo 8: View of bank erosion and poor riparian buffer within Site 4.
C-15
To: Christy Shumate, North Carolina Turnpike Authority
From: Michael Gloden, Atkins
Date: November 16, 2011
Re: On-Site Mitigation Feasibility Assessment – Monroe Connector/Bypass (STIP No. R-3329/R-2559)
Condition ‘p’ of the Section 404 permit (SAW-2009-00876) issued to the North Carolina Turnpike
Authority (NCTA) for construction of the Monroe Connector-Bypass states:
p. Prior to commencing any work on the project, as defined by special condition (e), above, the
permittee shall provide a final mitigation plan, as approved by the District Engineer, for any on-site
mitigation proposed by the permittee, or, in the event on-site mitigation opportunities are
found to be not available to the permittee, he shall provide documentation of this to the District
Engineer prior to commencing any work on the project.
Four on-site mitigation opportunities for the Monroe Connector/Bypass Project were previously
identified by Environmental Services Incorporated (ESI) and summarized in the memo titled “Review for
Potential On-Site Mitigation” dated February 12, 2010. Atkins North America Inc. (Atkins) subsequently
reviewed the four sites and concurs with the ESI findings that the sites offer stream mitigation
opportunities within and nearby to the Alternative D Study corridor. This memo documents landowner
interest in voluntary mitigation opportunities and an evaluation of mitigation feasibility.
Landowner Contact
Atkins contacted landowners of each site (Sites 1-4, Figure 1) in order to determine their interest in
participating in a mitigation project on their land. Contact information was derived from recently
obtained parcel data available from Union County. Landowners of each site were sent a letter (attached)
explaining the opportunity and asked to return their response regarding participation in an enclosed
postage paid envelope. Of the eight landowners contacted four responded favorably, one was not
interested, and three did not respond. Landowner responses are attached to this memo and
summarized in the following table.
Mitigation
Site
PIN Owner Mailing Address Response
Site 1
M7081003,
K7081003
Vance Adam Sherin et al. - Heirs
7216 Oak Spring Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Not Interested
07081002 Vance Adam Sherin et al. - Heirs
7403 Stinson Hartis Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Not Interested
K7078011 MI Homes of Charlotte LLC
9335 Harris Corners Pky (Suite
100) Charlotte, NC 28269
Interested
0708012C Kathleen Bowden
3725 Morning Star Drive
Matthews, NC 28105
No Response
Site 2
07027033A Franklin W. Howey, Jr.
PO Box 429
Monroe, NC 28111
No Response
07027033 90 Carlton Tyson et al. – Trustee
PB Box 748
Monroe, NC 28111
Interested
C-16
Mitigation
Site
PIN Owner Mailing Address Response
Site 3
08303014 Billy F Aycoth, Sr. – Trustee
4548 Seacrest Shortcut Road
Monroe, NC 28110
No Response
08273001 Thomas Ray and Judy H. Poplin
3310 Poplin Road
Monroe, NC 28110
Interested*
Site 4
02211024H
Thomas E. and Sarah H.
Traywick
PO Box 131
Wingate, NC 28174
Interested
02211024G NCDOT
206 Charter Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
N/A
*Initial response has changed since the landowner entered into an option to purchase agreement with a private mitigation
banker.
Mitigation Feasibility
Atkins determined mitigation feasibility by considering landowner interest and performing a field review
and screening procedure for each site. The field review was conducted to update and verify information
provided by ESI and consisted of a qualitative assessment of mitigation potential and a review for site
constraints. The screening procedure was performed for viable sites and included a review of protected
species and significant natural areas documented by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP), a review
of cultural and archeological resources within or adjacent to the sites as documented in the Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS and FEIS), and a review of environmental records from an
Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report. The mitigation feasibility of each site is discussed in detail
below.
Site 1: Not Feasible for Mitigation
Site 1 is located along Oak Spring Road between Stevens Mill Road and Stinson Hartis Road in western
Union County (Figure 2). The Site consists of five tax parcels, of which only one is owned by a landowner
who responded favorably to participating in a mitigation project. The tax parcels are color-coded on
Figure 2 to indicate each landowner’s response. The stream within Site 1 previously identified for
enhancement potential (S008c) is approximately 2000 linear feet in length and located on or adjacent to
the property boundary that divides the five tax parcels. Stream mitigation guidelines (USACE 2003)
require a 50-foot riparian buffer along both stream banks which necessitates participation from all five
landowners of Site 1. The one interested landowner (PIN K7078011) only includes a portion of the total
stream length within the site and does not have ownership of both sides of the stream. Due to lack of
landowner interest necessary to provide the required buffer on each side of the stream, Site 1 is
deemed not feasible.
Site 2: Not Feasible for Mitigation
Site 2 is located north of the intersection of Rocky River Road and Secrest Shortcut Road (Figure 3). The
site consists of two tax parcels, of which only one is owned by a landowner who responded favorably to
participating in a mitigation project. The tax parcels are color-coded on Figure 3 to indicate each
landowner’s response. Site 2 is crossed by the Monroe Connector-Bypass project alignment as indicated
by the permitted construction limits (plus 40-feet) shown on Figure 3. Mitigation opportunities
previously identified within the Site include stream enhancement along S047 (located along the
C-17
property boundary between the two tax parcels), S056c (located within the parcel that did not respond),
and S055 (located within the tax parcel with mitigation interest by the owner). Total stream length is
approximately 2,940 linear feet (excluding the portion within the construction limits). The Site also
includes riparian wetland WX822. Due to lack of landowner interest on parcel 0727033A, stream S047 is
no longer feasible for mitigation. Stream S056c is also no longer feasible for mitigation since
participation by both landowners is necessary to allow for the required 50-foot riparian buffer along
both stream banks. A field review of the site for mitigation opportunities along the remaining resources
(stream S055 and wetland WX822) determined that an existing sewer easement is located adjacent to
the eastern stream bank. The sewer easement follows the entire length of stream S055 and
encompasses a large portion of wetland WX822. Sewer easements require routine maintenance and
therefore preclude the establishment of the required 50-ft riparian buffer. Due to lack of landowner
interest, site constraints from an existing sewer easement, and the crossing of the streams by the
Monroe Connector-Bypass, Site 2 is deemed not feasible.
Site 3: Not Available for Mitigation
Site 3 is located along Poplin Road, north of the intersection with Secrest Shortcut Road. The mitigation
opportunity was previously identified to include stream enhancement along approximately 4,225 linear
feet of stream. Site 3 is no longer available for on-site mitigation by NCTA because the landowners
have signed an option to purchase agreement with a private mitigation banker.
Site 4: Potentially Feasible for Mitigation
Site 4 is located along Forest Hill School Road, southeast of the intersection with Phifer Road, and is
adjacent to the Monroe Connector-Bypass project alignment (Figure 4). The site consists of two tax
parcels, one of which is owned by a landowner who responded favorably to participating in a mitigation
project, and the second tax parcel is owned by NCDOT. The site includes approximately 1,000 linear feet
of an intermittent stream (S161b) located between the Monroe Connector-Bypass mainline and an exit
ramp to Forest Hill School Road. Final design drawings for the Monroe Connector-Bypass show that
S161b will be culverted at each end and stormwater drainage from the new road will be diverted into
the stream at two locations. Mitigation opportunities on the site include stream enhancement (level
2) on S161b with potential for implementing additional best management practices (BMP) to treat
stormwater. Stream enhancement activities that may be appropriate for the site include sloping stream
banks for stabilization (when necessary), planting an appropriate riparian buffer, livestock exclusion, and
stormwater treatment. This project would require the purchase of approximately 2.3 acres of property
to provide a 50-foot buffer on each side of the stream. In addition, the purchase of an additional 2.7
acres of property located between S161b and the Monroe Connector- Bypass is recommended.
Purchase of this property would preclude the potential of a stream crossing to provide access and would
provide a buffer between the project and road. Stream enhancement level 2 of approximately 1,000
feet of stream channel with a mitigation multiplier of 2.5 will result in 400 stream mitigation units
from Site 4. (Multiplier of 2.5 is used because S161b is an intermittent stream).
C-18
The results of the environmental screening for Site 4 include the following:
• Surveys for historic archeological resources, architectural resources, and other cultural
resources were completed for the DEIS (with updates in the FEIS) within the design alternative
that includes Site 4. The survey did not find any cultural resources located within or adjacent to
the site that would prevent the implementation of a stream mitigation project.
• Surveys for protected species were also performed for the DEIS (with updates in the FEIS) within
the design alternative that includes Site 4 and no occurrences of any protected species were
identified.
• A recent review of the NHP database indicates that no managed areas, significant natural
heritage areas, or element occurrences are located within or adjacent to the site.
• A transaction screen map and report was obtained from EDR to identify potential
environmental constraints within the Site. The report includes environmental risk records and
locations of known environmental records such as hazardous waste sites, underground storage
tanks, water wells, oil and gas pipelines, and transmission lines. Site 4 was not listed on any
available databases searched by EDR and no known environmental records were found.
• Field investigations identified no historic architectural or archaeological resources, utility
easements, or structures that would prevent the implementation of a stream mitigation project.
Recommendation:
As described above, Sites 1 and 3 are not feasible due to the lack of landowner interest or inability to
acquire the site. Site 2 is not feasible due to lack of landowner interest and site constraints. Although
Site 4 does provide potential for stream mitigation, Atkins does not recommend this site as mitigation
for the following reasons:
1. relatively small size of the project (1000 linear feet)
2. S161b will be culverted at both ends of the project
3. potential impacts associated with stormwater discharges
Atkins believes that this analysis of the four on-site mitigation opportunities provides sufficient
documentation that these sites are not feasible as compensatory mitigation. Upon review and approval
of this document by the NCTA Atkins will prepare a letter to the USACE-Wilmington District, District
Engineer for NCTA signature transmitting these findings.
C-19
kj
kj
kj
kj
2.5 1.25 0 2.5
MilesW
Figure 1
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
MITIGATION SITE
LOCATIONS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County
Map Printed November 2011.
Data Sources:
Street Map (ESRI)
Right-of-Way (NCTA)
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
kj
Alternative D Study Corridor
Monroe Connector/Bypass Alignment
Mitigation Site
R-2559 Alignment
C-20
Oak Spring
Stinson Hartis
Stevens Mill
K7078011
07081002
M7081003
K7081003
07078012C
S008c
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Perennial Stream
50 Foot Buffer
Mitigation Interest
Yes
No
No Response
500 250 0 500
FeetW
Figure 2
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 1
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County
Map Printed November 2011.
C-21
07027033 90
07027033A
WX822
Rocky River
Secrest Short Cut
Haywood
S047
S055
S056 c
S047
S055
500 250 0 500
FeetW
Figure 3
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 2
Map Printed November 2011.
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Sewer
Streams
Perennial
Intermittent
50 FT Buffer
Wetland
Mitigation Interest
Yes
No Response
C-22
Phifer
Forest Hill School
02211024H
02211024G
S161b
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Intermittent Stream
50 FT Buffer
Mitigation Interest
Yes
NCDOT
500 250 0 500
FeetW
Figure 4
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 4
Map Printed November 2011.
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
C-23
The NCEEP sites that provided the mitigation credits for the Monroe Connector Bypass under USACE 404
permit #2009‐00876, and NCDWR 401 permit #2002‐0672, are listed in the table below. Credits for the
46,166 mitigation units for warm water streams, and 16.2 mitigation units for wetlands, needed within
the Yadkin CU 03040105, are an amalgamation of restoration, enhancement, creation, and preservation
from these sites. Site locations and additional information can be found at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/interactive‐mapping
Site Instituted
Mitigation Site Utilized IMS ID# Project Phase
9/18/2009 Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mit. Site 94147 Construction
7/28/2004 Beaver Dam-Drowning Creek II (Rankin Tract) 92164 Long Term Mgmt
4/11/2006 Helms 172 Monitoring Year 4
7/22/2003 Back Creek 17 Long Term Mgmt
6/28/2006 Big Cedar Creek 92532 Monitoring Year 5
9/27/2004 Lone Mountain 2 -Phase Two 92171 Long Term Mgmt
6/8/2006 Suther 370 Monitoring Year 3
6/30/2010 UT to Town Creek 94648 Construction
9/24/2009 Scaly Bark Creek Mitigation Site 94148 Monitoring Year 3
4/11/2005 Dutch Buffalo Creek Walker 92116 Long Term Mgmt
4/15/2005 Dutch Buffalo Creek Wickliff 92117 Long Term Mgmt
7/7/2005 Little River Cochran 92113 Long Term Mgmt
5/11/2005 Barnes Creek Grissom 92106 Long Term Mgmt
12/20/2004 Bishop Tract-Canal Branch 92162 Long Term Mgmt
1/31/2006 Uwharrie River Bingham 92108 Long Term Mgmt
10/9/2007 Uwharrie River Cochran 92109 Long Term Mgmt
2/1/2004 Lambert Tract-Uwharrie River Bluff 92160 Long Term Mgmt
1/23/2006 Drowning Creek IP Forest Investments 92121 Long Term Mgmt
7/7/2006 601 North Property 92546 Long Term Mgmt
6/30/2010 Buffalo Flats Restoration Site 94647 Monitoring Year 2
7/21/2006 Stricker Branch 92556 Close Out
7/18/2006 601 West Property 92545 Long Term Mgmt
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/interactive-mapping
C-24
C-25
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
C-31
C-32
APPENDIX D APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX D
ERRATA
This page was intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
D-1
APPENDIX D – DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ERRATA
Appendix D includes corrections and clarifications to the November 2013 Draft Supplemental
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED
In Section 1.1.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS (Evaluation of Need for Proposed Action),
the second full paragraph on page 1-2 states that “…NCDOT designated the US 74 corridor as a
Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) and it is also designated as part of the North Carolina
Intrastate System. Consistent with local planning documents, these state designations call for
this corridor to serve high-speed regional travel.” As footnoted in Section 1.1.1 of this Final
Supplemental Final EIS, the North Carolina Intrastate System (defined in NC General Statutes
136-179) was repealed in July 2013 by NC Session Law 2013-183 as part of the Strategic
Prioritization Funding Plan for Transportation Investments. This footnote should also have
been included in Section 1.1.1, Section 1.1.2, and Section 1.2.3 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS.
In Section 1.1.2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, the stated purpose of the project is to
“improve mobility and capacity within the project study area by providing a facility for the US 74
corridor from near I-485 in Mecklenburg County to between the towns of Wingate and
Marshville in Union County that allows for high-speed regional travel consistent with the
designations of the North Carolina SHC program and the North Carolina Intrastate System,
while maintaining access to properties along existing US 74.” A note should have been included
here to acknowledge that the North Carolina Intrastate System was repealed. This has been
corrected with the addition of a reference to footnote #2 in Section 1.1.2 of this Final
Supplemental Final EIS.
The North Carolina Intrastate System is also referenced in Section 1.2.3 of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, Transportation and Land Use Plans, which states that the proposed
action is included in local plans “in a manner that is consistent with the SHC and North
Carolina Intrastate System visions for the corridor.” This sentence should have been revised to
remove the reference to the North Carolina Intrastate System since this designation was
repealed prior to publication of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS.
The change in legislation does not change the substantive statements of the project purpose and
need, nor does it affect the alternatives screening process. Although the Intrastate System
legislation was repealed, high-speed travel is still designated for the corridor in the NC SHC
program. Therefore, the removal of the Intrastate System designation does not affect the
purpose or the need for the project as presented in Section 1 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS. Because the purpose and need for the project does not change, the alternatives screening
process described in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS therefore remains valid.
SECTION 1.1.1 – EVALUATION OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The language in the second paragraph of Section 1.1.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS
should have been updated to reflect the fact that although Union County has continued to be one
of the fastest growing counties in the state since 2010, it is not the fastest. In addition, this
paragraph noted that Union County is the only county adjacent to Mecklenburg County that
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -2 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
does not have a high-speed interstate-type facility connecting it to Mecklenburg County. This
statement fails to acknowledge that Lincoln County, NC and Lancaster County, SC share a small
portion of their borders with Mecklenburg County but do not have high-speed interstate-type
facilities connecting them with Mecklenburg County.
The corrected paragraph is as follows:
US 74 is the major east-west route connecting the Charlotte region, a major population
center and freight distribution point, to the North Carolina Coast and the port at
Wilmington (North Carolina’s largest port). In addition, US 74 is the primary
transportation connection between Union County, the fastest growing county in North
Carolina between 2000 and 2010, and Mecklenburg County/City of Charlotte, the
economic hub of the region. Although Union County is one of the fastest growing
countyies in the State, it is the only county adjacent to having a major border with
Mecklenburg County that does not have a high-speed interstate-type facility connecting
it to Mecklenburg County.
It should also be noted that the statement about Union County not having a high-speed
interstate-type facility connecting it to Mecklenburg County was included for the purpose of
showing that growth in Union County is all the more notable because it occurred without such a
facility. The statement was not an attempt to add equity among counties as another need for the
project.
SECTION 1.2.4 – ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONS
Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS present peak hour travel speeds
along US 74 based on a review on INRIX data. Some of the travel speeds presented in the tables
were incorrect due to an error in the spreadsheet calculation used to determine weighted average
speeds. The travel speeds shown on Exhibits 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS are correct. Corrected Tables 1-2 and 1-3 are provided below.
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -3 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
CORRECTED TABLE 1-2: Peak Hour Speeds Along US 74 Eastbound (2011, 2012, August
2013)
Approx.
Length
(miles)
Eastbound US 74 Segments
(from west to east)
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Weighted
Avg Speed
Limit to
Match INRIX
Segments
(mph)
2011
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
2012
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
August 2013
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
Lunch PM Lunch PM Lunch PM
8.2 I‐485 to
Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 4645 4042 4546 4042 4546 40
5.5
Fowler Secrest Road to
US 601 (Pageland Hwy)
(easternmost intersection of US 74 and
US 601 east of Monroe)
45 45 35 38 3736 3938 3837 3834
3.0 US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to
east of Presson Road 55
46 4748 4647 48 47 49 48
0.2 East of Presson Road to
Wingate City Limit 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to
Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to
Olde Country Lane 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west
of Marshville Town Limit 55
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town
Limit to Marshville Town Limit 45
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed (mph) 49 44 4243 4445 43 4546 4342
Comparison ‐ Average Travel Speeds to Speed Limits
I‐485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) ‐9 to ‐15 mph below speed limit
Fowler Secrest Road to US 601 (Pageland Hwy) ‐67 to ‐1011 mph below speed limit
US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to within Marshville +3 to 0+1 mph about/slightly above speed limit
OVERALL CORRIDOR ‐43 to ‐7 mph below speed limit
Source: INRIX, Inc.
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -4 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
The corrected travel speeds shown in the tables above do not change any of the findings of the
Draft Supplemental Final EIS. Eastbound US 74 weighted average travel speeds range from 42-
46 mph (3-7 mph below weighted average speed limit), and westbound US 74 weighted average
travel speeds range from 41-44 mph (5-8 mph below weighted average speed limit). All speeds
along the corridor are still below the desired 50 miles per hour (mph).
In addition, the travel speed information presented in Section 1.2.4 of the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS has been updated in Section 2.1 of the Final Supplemental Final EIS to include
analysis of INRIX data from all of 2013, which was not available at the time of publication of the
Draft Supplemental Final EIS. Review of the 2013 INRIX data confirms that the average peak
hour travel speeds along US 74 are below 50 mph for all segments in both directions.
CORRECTED TABLE 1-3: Peak Hour Speeds Along US 74 Westbound (2011, 2012, August
2013)
Approx.
Length
(miles)
Eastbound US 74 Segments
(from east to west)
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Weighted
Avg Speed
Limit to
Match INRIX
Segments
(mph)
2011
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
2012
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
August 2013
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
AM PM AM PM AM PM
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
46 3746 3846 3847 3947 4048 4147
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town
Limit to Marshville Town Limit 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west
of Marshville Town Limit 55
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to
Olde Country Lane 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to
Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35
0.2 East of Presson Road to
Wingate City Limit 45
3.0 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to
east of Presson Road 55
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to
US 601 (Pageland Highway) 45 45 38 3735 3938 3938 3940 3633
8.2 I‐485 to
Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 3841 4340 4143 4440 4043 4239
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed (mph) 49 3742 3941 3944 4142 4044 4041
Comparison ‐ Average Travel Speeds to Speed Limits
Within Marshville to US 601 (Pageland Hwy) ‐5+2 to ‐90 mph belowequal to/slightly above speed limit
US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to Fowler Secrest Road ‐65 to ‐912 mph below speed limit
Fowler Secrest Road to I‐485 ‐112 to ‐176 mph below speed limit
OVERALL CORRIDOR ‐85 to ‐128 mph below speed limit
Source: INRIX, Inc.
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -5 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
SECTION 3 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 3.3.3 – AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE
US
Table 3-2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS includes a column titled “Stream Impacts
Requiring Mitigation.” As described in Note 2 at the bottom of the table, mitigation
requirements were based on the assumption that all perennial stream impacts require
mitigation as well as any impacts to intermittent streams with NCDWQ stream ratings greater
than 26. This table was originally included in the Final EIS for estimation purposes since final
decisions with respect to mitigation had not been made by the regulatory agencies at that time.
Following publication of the Final EIS, an acceptance letter was received from the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) dated June 24, 2010 (see Appendix C of this Final Supplemental
Final EIS). The letter states that the EEP will provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
stream impacts up to 23,083 linear feet. Therefore, the stream impacts requiring mitigation
presented in Table 3-2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS should have been equivalent to the
total stream impacts. This change would similarly affect all Detailed Study Alternatives (DSA).
The following is a corrected Table 3-2:
TABLE 3-2: Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Since the Draft EIS
Impacts1
Perennial
Streams
(linear ft)
Intermittent
Streams
(linear ft)
Total Streams
(linear ft)
Wetlands
(acres)
Ponds
(acres)
Stream
Impacts
Requiring
Mitigation2
Impacts Reported in Draft EIS
for DSA D 9,794 12,269 22,063 8.1 2.6 22,06312,550
Impacts for Preferred
Alternative (no service roads) 9,205 12,389 21,594 8.0 3.1 21,59411,975
Add Service Road Impacts +1,148 +341 +1,489 +0.1 +0.0 +1,489+1,260
TOTAL IMPACTS FOR
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 10,353 12,729 23,083 8.1 3.1 23,08313,235
Change from Draft EIS to
Preferred +559 +460 +1,020 0 +0.5 +1,020+685
Source: Natural Resources State Technical Report for the Monroe Connector/Bypass (ESI, December 2008) with updated y‐line and
service road information provided October 2009.
Notes: 1Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 40‐foot buffer. 2Based on assumption that all perennial stream impacts
require mitigation as well as any impacts to intermittent streams with NCDWQ stream ratings greater than 26.
SECTION 3.3.4 – COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The estimated environmental mitigation costs ($11.3 to $11.9 million) presented in Table 3-3 of
the Draft Supplemental Final EIS were incorrect. The mitigation costs were calculated based on
a 2:1 ratio for the intermittent streams, but did not include costs for mitigation of impacts to
perennial streams. The mitigation costs should also have included mitigation for perennial
streams at a 2:1 ratio. Corrected mitigation costs ($16.9 million) are provided in Table 2-1 of the
Final Supplemental Final EIS and are based on the actual environmental mitigation costs paid
for the project.
It should be noted that the cost estimates for the Preferred Alternative presented in Section 3.3.4
of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS ($898.0 million) were based on simply inflating the cost
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -6 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
estimates presented in Section 2.3.4 of the Final EIS ($802.0 million) to reflect a delay in the
project opening date from December 2014 to October 2018. Following publication of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, NCDOT made adjustments to the cost estimates to reflect the design-build
price proposal as well as actual costs paid to date for the project to develop an updated
estimate of project costs. As stated in Section 2.4 of the Final Supplemental Final EIS, the
updated total project cost is $838.6 million with an 70 percent confidence level (70 percent
probability the cost will be less than or equal to this cost).
SECTION 3.4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The fourth bullet in the bulleted list of conclusions summarized from the updated quantitative
ICE analysis presented on page 3-18 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS contains an incorrect
number. The following is the corrected bullet:
 The indirect land use effects are modest, totaling about 2,300 2,100 acres of additional
development, an increase of less than 2 percent over the No-Build Scenario and an
increase in development of about 1 percent of the total land area within the study area.
The indirect land use effects were reported correctly on page 71 (Section 5.3) of the Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Quantitative Analysis Update (ICE Update) (Michael Baker Engineering,
Inc., November 2013). However, in the conclusions on page 90 (Section 5.10) and in the
Executive Summary on page ix (Section E.7), the incorrect acreage (2,300) was reported. The
conclusions from the ICE Update were repeated in part in Section 3.4 of the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS, and therefore the incorrect acreage was inadvertently reported in the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS. The error in the ICE Update was typographic in nature and resulted
from a failure to update numbers in all sections of the text during the final rounds of updating
the report. All data reported in the tables in the ICE Update is accurate and the typographic
error does not affect the conclusions regarding impacts.
APPENDIX E APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX E
TECHNICAL MEMORANDA
E-1. INRIX US 74 Corridor Travel Speeds Memo (April 2014)
E-2. Traffic Forecast Memo (May 2014)
E-3. Review of New CRTPO Socioeconomic Projections
(May 2014)
E-4. Review of the report titled, Review of Traffic Forecasting:
Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft Supplemental Final EIS,
November 2013, prepared by The Hartgen Group for the
Southern Environmental Law Center
E-5. Appold Letter (May 29, 1013)
E-6. MUMPO letter to Kym Hunter (April 16, 2013)
E-7. FHWA Conformity Determination for CRTPO 2040 MTP
(May 2, 2014)
E-8. FHWA Memos
This page was intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX E APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX E-1
INRIX US 74 Corridor Travel Speeds Memo (April 2014)
This page was intentionally left blank.
E1-1
segment within the Marshville town limit. Table 2 shows that the entire westbound corridor operates
significantly below the posted speed. Figures 1-6 display the average operating speeds for US 74
eastbound and westbound for AM, lunch and PM peak hours in 2013. Tables 3-5 show INRIX
average speed data along the US 74 eastbound and westbound corridor per segment and 24-hour
period for 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Conclusions
The INRIX data demonstrate that localized spot improvements along the US 74 corridor over the last
few years have not improved the overall corridor travel speeds. In fact, the average corridor travel
speeds have remained relatively constant from 2011 to 2012 to 2013, within +/- 1 to 2 mph. The US
74 facility still experiences congestion during peak periods of the day, and the corridor does not
currently operate as a high-speed facility (average speed of 50 mph or greater).
Based on the review of INRIX data, at no time during the day are US 74 average corridor speeds
equal to or exceeding 50 mph. US 74 corridor average hourly travel speeds, during peak and off-peak
conditions throughout a 24-hour period over a three-year period from January 1st, 2011 to
December 31st, 2013, are limited to less than 50 mph. This data includes off-peak periods, free-flow
conditions with very little to no congestion, and recent US 74 improvements along the corridor.
E1-2
Table 1. US 74 Eastbound Peak Period Speeds
Apprx.
Segment
Length
(miles)
Eastbound US 74 Segment
from West to East
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Wtd.
Speed
Limit to
match
INRIX
(mph)
2011 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2012 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2013 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM
8.2 I-485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 45 45 42 48 46 42 47 46 41
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to US 601
(Pageland Highway) 45 45 39 35 38 41 36 38 40 37 35
3 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to east of
Presson Road 55
46 48 48 47 48 48 47 49 48 47
0.2 East of Presson Road to Wingate City
Limit 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to Old Highway 74
(SR 1740) 35
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to Olde
Country Lane 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west of
Marshville Town Limit 55
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town Limit
to Marshville Town Limit 45
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed 49 49 45 44 43 47 45 43 46 45 42
E1-3
Table 2. US 74 Westbound Peak Period Speeds
Apprx.
Segment
Length
(miles)
Westbound US 74 Segment
from East to West
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Wtd.
Speed
Limit to
match
INRIX
(mph)
2011 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2012 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2013 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town Limit to
Marshville Town Limit 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west of Marshville
Town Limit 55
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to Olde Country Lane 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35
0.2 East of Presson Road to Wingate City Limit 45
3 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to east of Presson
Road 55
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to US 601 (Pageland
Highway) 45 45 38 35 35 38 35 38 39 36 35
8.2 I-485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 41 43 40 43 45 40 41 44 39
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed 49 49 42 43 41 44 44 42 43 44 41
E1-4
Figure 1. US 74 Eastbound 2013 AM Peak Period Speeds
E1-5
Figure 2. US 74 Eastbound 2013 Lunch Peak Period Speeds
E1-6
Figure 3. US 74 Eastbound 2013 PM Peak Period Speeds
E1-7
Figure 4. US 74 Westbound 2013 AM Peak Period Speeds
E1-8
Figure 5. US 74 Westbound 2013 Lunch Peak Period Speeds
E1-9
Figure 6. US 74 Westbound 2013 PM Peak Period Speeds
E1-10
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125+07488 NC-205/Elm St 8.54 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 49
125P05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.02 36 37 36 37 38 36 33 33 32 30 29 29 28 27 27 33 35 36 35 33 32 32 35 36
125+05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.12 35 35 35 36 37 34 32 32 32 29 28 27 26 26 26 32 34 35 34 32 32 31 33 34
125+07487 E Franklin St 1.21 40 40 41 41 41 39 38 38 38 38 38 37 36 36 36 38 40 40 40 40 37 36 39 40
125+07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.11 42 42 42 43 43 42 40 38 38 40 41 40 38 38 39 38 39 38 37 38 37 38 41 41
125P05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.35 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 49 49 49 49
125+05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.58 43 44 44 44 44 43 41 38 36 35 34 32 29 28 30 33 34 33 34 35 37 37 41 42
125+05820 Roland Dr 6.86 49 49 49 49 49 48 46 43 43 47 48 46 45 45 45 46 46 45 45 45 45 45 47 48
125+05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 1.27 51 52 52 52 52 51 48 46 45 47 46 46 45 44 44 40 38 36 36 42 46 46 49 50
125+05818 Stallings Rd 0.75 52 52 52 52 53 51 48 46 44 41 40 39 38 37 36 32 28 20 28 39 46 48 51 52
125P05817 I-485 0.76 56 56 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 57 57 57 56 56 56 56 55 52 54 54 55 54 56 56
125+05817 I-485 0.44 47 48 48 48 49 47 47 48 46 46 47 47 46 45 45 46 46 44 45 44 44 45 47 48
125+05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.26 45 46 45 45 46 44 43 42 41 41 42 41 39 39 38 38 37 34 38 38 40 41 44 45
49 49 49 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 49
50 50 50 50 50 49 47 45 44 47 48 46 45 45 45 45 44 42 43 45 46 46 48 49
42 43 43 43 43 42 40 39 38 38 38 37 35 34 35 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 41 42
48 48 48 48 48 47 46 45 45 46 46 45 44 44 44 44 44 43 44 44 45 45 47 48
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125-05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.43 44 44 46 44 46 44 39 24 24 31 34 32 29 31 32 32 32 31 33 36 38 39 44 44
125N05817 I-485 0.91 55 55 55 55 55 55 54 44 44 54 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54 54 53 53 53 55 55
125-05817 I-485 0.61 50 50 50 50 50 51 49 44 45 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 46 48 47 47 47 49 49
125-05818 Stallings Rd 1.26 48 48 48 49 49 48 44 32 40 45 46 46 45 45 45 44 43 38 42 44 45 45 47 48
125-05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 6.86 49 49 49 49 49 49 45 43 44 45 45 44 42 43 42 41 40 39 41 44 44 45 47 48
125-05820 Roland Dr 1.66 44 44 44 44 44 44 42 37 36 39 40 38 36 36 37 35 35 34 35 38 38 38 42 44
125N05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.30 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 48 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 48 48
125-05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.07 42 42 42 42 42 43 42 41 40 40 40 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 40 41 39 38 41 42
125-07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.22 39 39 40 40 40 39 37 36 36 34 33 32 30 32 31 31 32 32 35 38 36 37 38 39
125-07487 E Franklin St 0.11 28 28 28 28 31 29 27 28 26 22 21 20 20 20 20 21 21 22 24 25 25 25 27 27
125N05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.01 28 27 27 27 31 28 26 27 24 24 23 23 22 22 23 23 24 24 26 26 25 25 26 26
125-05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 8.55 47 47 47 47 48 47 46 46 45 46 47 46 46 47 46 46 46 46 46 47 46 46 47 47
47 47 47 47 48 47 46 46 45 46 47 46 46 47 46 46 46 46 46 47 46 46 47 47
42 42 42 42 42 42 41 38 38 38 38 37 35 36 36 35 36 35 37 39 38 38 41 42
49 49 49 49 49 49 46 41 43 45 46 45 43 44 44 43 42 40 42 45 45 46 48 49
47 47 47 47 48 47 45 42 43 44 45 44 43 44 43 43 42 41 43 44 44 44 46 47
Westbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Average US 74 WB Corridor Speed (mph)
Avg speed Fowler Secrest to US-601
Avg speed I-485 to Fowler Secrest
Avg speed US-601 to NC 205
Avg speed Roland to Matthews Mint Hill
Avg speed US-601 to Roland Dr
Avg speed Marshville to US-601 intersection
Average Speed for US 74 from NC 205 (Elm St.) to I-485
Table 3 - US 74 Corridor INRIX Average Speed Data
2011, Tuesday - Thursday
Average Speed for US 74 from I-485 to NC 205 (Elm St.)
Eastbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Average US 74 EB Corridor Speed (mph)
E1-11
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125+07488 NC-205/Elm St 8.54 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 49 49 49 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49
125P05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.02 39 39 39 39 39 37 35 33 32 32 30 29 28 28 28 34 36 36 35 35 33 34 38 38
125+05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.12 37 37 37 37 37 35 34 32 33 30 29 28 27 26 26 33 36 35 34 34 33 32 35 35
125+07487 E Franklin St 1.21 41 41 41 42 42 41 42 39 38 39 39 38 37 36 37 39 41 40 40 41 39 37 40 40
125+07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.11 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 41 40 42 43 42 40 39 40 38 38 37 37 38 38 39 41 41
125P05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.35 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 52 51 51 51 50 51 51 51 50 50 49 49 49 50 50
125+05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.58 44 45 45 45 45 43 42 42 40 36 35 33 30 30 32 35 36 35 36 38 39 38 42 43
125+05820 Roland Dr 6.86 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 47 47 49 49 48 46 46 46 47 47 46 46 46 46 46 48 48
125+05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 1.27 52 52 52 52 52 52 50 49 48 48 47 46 45 44 44 40 36 33 36 41 47 47 50 51
125+05818 Stallings Rd 0.75 53 53 53 53 53 52 49 47 46 40 38 38 37 35 35 30 25 18 24 35 46 48 51 52
125P05817 I-485 0.76 56 56 56 56 57 56 57 58 58 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 54 50 54 54 55 55 56 56
125+05817 I-485 0.44 50 50 50 50 50 48 48 48 47 47 47 46 46 46 45 47 46 44 46 45 46 46 49 49
125+05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.26 48 48 48 48 48 46 44 43 42 40 39 38 37 36 35 38 36 31 37 39 41 42 47 47
49 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 49 49 49 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49
50 50 50 50 50 50 49 48 48 49 48 47 46 46 45 45 44 42 44 45 47 47 49 49
43 44 44 44 44 43 43 41 40 39 39 38 36 35 37 38 39 38 38 40 39 39 42 42
48 48 48 49 49 48 48 47 46 47 47 46 45 45 45 45 44 43 44 45 46 46 48 48
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125-05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.43 48 48 50 48 48 47 42 25 27 33 36 34 30 32 33 32 32 31 33 38 41 41 47 48
125N05817 I-485 0.91 55 55 56 55 55 56 56 47 49 56 57 56 56 56 56 56 56 55 55 54 54 54 55 55
125-05817 I-485 0.61 51 51 51 51 52 52 50 47 49 50 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 47 48 47 48 48 50 51
125-05818 Stallings Rd 1.26 49 50 50 50 51 51 45 36 40 47 49 48 47 47 46 45 44 38 41 44 46 46 48 49
125-05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 6.86 49 49 49 49 49 49 47 45 45 46 47 45 43 42 42 41 41 39 41 44 44 45 47 48
125-05820 Roland Dr 1.66 45 45 45 45 45 45 43 36 34 39 40 38 36 36 37 38 39 38 37 38 38 39 43 44
125N05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.30 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 49 49
125-05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.07 42 43 43 43 44 45 45 42 41 40 39 39 38 38 38 40 41 41 41 42 41 39 42 42
125-07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.22 40 40 41 41 41 42 40 37 36 33 32 30 29 30 29 32 33 33 37 39 38 36 39 39
125-07487 E Franklin St 0.11 32 31 32 32 32 31 29 29 26 23 23 21 21 20 21 22 23 23 25 27 27 26 30 31
125N05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.01 33 33 33 34 33 30 28 28 25 24 24 23 23 22 23 25 25 26 28 29 29 28 32 33
125-05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 8.55 47 47 47 48 48 48 47 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
47 47 47 48 48 48 47 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
43 43 43 43 44 44 43 38 37 38 38 36 35 35 35 37 38 38 39 40 39 38 42 42
50 50 50 50 50 50 48 43 44 47 48 46 45 44 44 43 43 40 42 45 45 46 48 49
47 47 48 48 48 48 46 44 44 45 46 45 44 43 43 43 43 42 43 45 45 45 46 47
Table 4 - US 74 Corridor INRIX Average Speed Data
Average US 74 WB Corridor Speed (mph)
Avg speed Roland to Matthews Mint Hill
2012, Tuesday - Thursday
Average Speed for US 74 from I-485 to NC 205 (Elm St.)
Eastbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Avg speed US-601 to NC 205
Avg speed I-485 to Fowler Secrest
Avg speed Fowler Secrest to US-601
Average US 74 EB Corridor Speed (mph)
Average Speed for US 74 from NC 205 (Elm St.) to I-485
Westbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Avg speed Marshville to US-601 intersection
Avg speed US-601 to Roland Dr
E1-12
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125+07488 NC-205/Elm St 8.54 49 49 49 49 50 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 48 48 47 48 47 48 48 48 48 49 49
125P05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.02 41 41 41 41 41 39 38 36 36 34 35 34 33 33 33 36 36 36 37 36 37 36 39 40
125+05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.12 39 39 39 40 39 38 37 35 35 32 31 30 30 29 29 33 34 34 35 35 35 34 36 37
125+07487 E Franklin St 1.21 42 43 42 43 43 43 42 39 38 40 40 40 39 39 39 37 38 37 40 43 41 38 41 41
125+07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.11 43 44 44 44 45 45 44 41 40 42 42 41 39 40 40 35 34 34 37 39 40 39 42 43
125P05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.35 51 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 49 50 50 49 49 50 49 50 49 50 50
125+05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.58 43 43 44 44 44 43 41 39 37 36 36 34 32 31 32 30 30 30 32 37 38 36 40 41
125+05820 Roland Dr 6.86 49 50 50 50 50 50 48 46 47 48 48 47 46 45 46 46 45 44 46 45 46 46 48 48
125+05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 1.27 52 52 52 53 52 52 48 48 48 48 47 46 45 44 43 40 35 33 35 39 46 46 50 51
125+05818 Stallings Rd 0.75 52 52 52 53 52 52 48 45 46 40 37 37 35 34 33 29 23 19 23 32 45 47 50 51
125P05817 I-485 0.76 56 56 56 56 57 56 57 56 57 57 57 57 56 56 56 56 53 50 53 53 55 55 56 56
125+05817 I-485 0.44 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 46 46 46 47 46 44 46 45 46 46 48 49
125+05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.26 47 47 47 46 46 44 43 40 41 39 40 39 36 36 35 35 34 30 36 37 39 41 45 46
49 49 49 49 50 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 48 48 47 48 47 48 48 48 48 49 49
50 51 51 51 51 51 49 47 48 48 48 47 46 45 45 45 43 41 43 44 46 47 49 49
43 44 44 44 44 44 43 40 39 40 40 39 37 37 37 35 35 35 37 40 40 38 41 42
48 49 49 49 49 49 48 46 46 47 47 46 45 44 45 44 43 42 44 45 46 46 48 48
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125-05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.43 47 47 47 48 48 46 41 25 25 32 36 34 29 31 32 32 32 30 31 37 40 41 46 47
125N05817 I-485 0.91 56 55 55 56 56 56 54 42 42 55 56 56 55 55 56 55 55 54 54 54 54 54 55 56
125-05817 I-485 0.61 52 52 52 53 53 53 49 47 48 50 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 47 47 47 49 48 51 51
125-05818 Stallings Rd 1.26 50 50 51 52 52 51 43 33 38 47 49 48 47 47 47 45 43 36 38 44 46 46 49 50
125-05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 6.86 48 49 49 49 49 49 46 43 45 46 46 45 42 42 41 40 40 37 40 44 45 44 47 48
125-05820 Roland Dr 1.66 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 37 35 38 39 37 36 36 36 33 34 33 34 37 37 38 42 43
125N05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.30 49 49 49 49 50 50 51 50 49 49 49 49 48 49 49 49 49 48 49 49 49 48 49 49
125-05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.07 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 43 42 40 40 39 38 38 38 38 38 38 41 42 41 40 42 43
125-07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.22 40 41 41 41 41 42 41 37 35 34 34 34 33 33 33 34 34 34 36 38 37 37 39 40
125-07487 E Franklin St 0.11 36 36 37 36 37 36 34 30 28 29 29 28 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 31 31 31 35 36
125N05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.01 36 36 37 36 37 36 33 30 29 31 31 30 29 29 29 30 31 31 31 33 33 32 35 36
125-05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 8.55 48 48 48 48 49 48 48 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 47 47 48 48
48 48 48 48 49 48 48 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 47 47 48 48
43 43 44 44 44 44 44 39 38 38 38 37 36 36 36 35 36 35 37 39 39 39 41 42
49 50 50 50 50 50 46 41 43 47 47 46 44 44 43 42 42 39 41 45 46 45 48 49
48 48 48 48 49 48 47 43 43 45 45 45 44 44 43 43 43 41 43 45 45 45 47 47
Table 5 - US 74 Corridor INRIX Average Speed Data
Avg speed Roland to Matthews Mint Hill
Average US 74 WB Corridor Speed (mph)
Avg speed US-601 to Roland Dr
2013, Tuesday - Thursday
Average Speed for US 74 from I-485 to NC 205 (Elm St.)
Eastbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Avg speed US-601 to NC 205
Avg speed I-485 to Fowler Secrest
Avg speed Fowler Secrest to US-601
Average US 74 EB Corridor Speed (mph)
Average Speed for US 74 from NC 205 (Elm St.) to I-485
Westbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Avg speed Marshville to US-601 intersection
E1-13
This page was intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX E APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX E-2
Traffic Forecast Memo (May 2014)
This page was intentionally left blank.
E2-1
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 2
Table 1 – Summary of Monroe Connector/Bypass Project Traffic Forecasts
Document Name
Prepared By,
Date
Forecast
Years
Forecast
Scenarios
Model Version and SE Data
Used in
NEPA
Documents
Traffic Forecasts
A
Traffic Forecast for the No-
Build Alternatives for
NCDOT State TIP Project
No. R-3329 and NCDOT
State TIP Project No. R-
2559, Monroe
Connector/Bypass Study
Martin/Alexiou/Bryson
(MAB), June 2008
2007,
2030
2007 &
2030
No-Build
MRM05 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934)
Yes
B
Technical Memorandum for
TIP Projects
R-2559 & R-3329 US74
Upgrade Scenario
Wilbur Smith
Associates (WSA),
June 2008
2035
2035
Upgrade
Existing
Build Non-
Toll & Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934)
Yes
C
Traffic Forecast for TIP
Projects
R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe
Connector/Bypass
WSA, September
2008
2008,
2035
2008 &
2035
No-Build,
Build
Non-Toll &
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934)
Yes
Traffic Forecast Interpolations, Extrapolations and Redistributions
D
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Alternative 3A
2013 AADT Build Toll
Scenario
HNTB, January 2009 2013
2013
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934).
No
E
2035 Build Toll Forecast,
Segment 2 (Alternative 3A)
HNTB, July 2009 2035
2035
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934).
Yes
F
NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised
Monroe Connector Bypass
No-Build Traffic Forecast
Memorandum
HNTB, March 2010
2008,
2035
2008 &
2035
No-Build
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934).
Yes
G
Monroe Connector /
Bypass Year 2025 Build
Toll Alternative 3A Traffic
Volume Projections
HNTB, August 2010 2025
2025
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934).
No
Traffic & Revenue Studies
H
Monroe Connector/Bypass
2009 Update to Preliminary
Study
WSA, April 2009
2014
thru
2054
2014 thru
2054
Build Toll
Modified MRM06 and modified 2008
Interim SE data
(SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim)
No
I
Proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass
Comprehensive Traffic and
Revenue Study, Final
Report
WSA, October 2010
2015
thru
2055
2015 thru
2055
Build Toll
Modified MRM06 and modified 2008
Interim SE data
(SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim)
No
For reference, Table 2 and Table 3 provide an estimated daily traffic volume comparison, by
segment, of the No-Build and Build traffic forecasts, respectively, prepared during the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project development process.
E2-2
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 3
1.1 Traffic Forecasts
Project-Level traffic forecasts were developed for No-Build, Improve Existing, and Build
scenarios. These forecasts are based on data including, but not limited to, traffic counts,
historic travel trends, the MUMPO Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the MRM, and
existing road network operations. It is important to note that the forecasts are not based
solely on any single data source but are based on the review, comparison, and synthesis of
different sources of data. These individual data sources are not intended to be traffic
forecasts and do not include the level of detail ultimately developed in the traffic forecast.
For example, the MRM does not include all the roadways within the study area. Therefore,
those roadways are included in the traffic forecast through analyzing traffic counts or other
available data sources. Another example of source data are Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) volumes, which are developed by annualizing traffic counts collected at one point in
time. The following list describes the uses of each traffic forecast developed in the project
development process:
A. Traffic Forecast for the No-Build Alternatives for NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-3329
and NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-2559, Monroe Connector/Bypass Study
This forecast is used in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as follows:
 Existing and Year 2030 No-Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum,
completed in March 2008
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS
This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Final EIS
Ultimately this document was updated by the NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R-2559
Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum (Table 1,
F).
B. Technical Memorandum for TIP Projects R-2559 & R-3329 US 74 Upgrade Scenario
This forecast is used in the Draft EIS as follows:
 STIP Projects R-3329/R-2559 Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternatives Study,
completed in March 2009
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS
C. Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass
This forecast is used in the Draft EIS as follows:
 Final Air Quality Technical Memorandum for the Monroe Connector Bypass
completed in February 2009
 Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum completed in March 2009
 Year 2035 Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum completed in
February 2009
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS
E2-3
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 4
This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Final EIS
The No-Build forecast was ultimately updated in the document NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast
Memorandum (Table 1, F). Additional discussion is included in Attachment A (Monroe
Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Summary Memorandum).
1.2 Traffic Forecast Interpolations, Extrapolations or Redistributions
Traffic forecast interpolations, extrapolations, or redistributions of the original traffic forecasts
were developed to state, analyze, or confirm traffic forecast volumes for conditions or years
not included in the initial traffic forecasts. This approach uses the original accepted
forecasts and base data assumptions to mathematically calculate traffic estimates and
redistributions of traffic for conditions not included or known at the time of the initial forecast.
This methodology is appropriate because the differences being considered do not change
the original forecast, assumptions, methodology or base data. The interpolation and
extrapolation process is a method for developing new data points for years not considered in
the base forecast but within the range of volumes established by the base forecast. The
redistribution process was used to evaluate a minor change in the frontage road
configuration at the western terminus of the project. Examples of these differences include
different interchange forms and service road connection points. The geometric differences
analyzed were minor to the point of not changing the base forecast assumptions or data.
The following list describes each traffic forecast’s uses and the interpolations,
extrapolations, or redistributions necessary for that forecast:
D. Monroe Connector/Bypass Alternative 3A 2013 AADT Build Toll Scenario
This 2013 Build Forecast was developed to represent the opening year traffic volumes
for inclusion on the April 2009 Monroe Connector/Bypass public hearing maps. This
forecast was developed through interpolation of the 2008 and 2035 Build forecasts from
the Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table
1, C).
E. 2035 Build Toll Forecast, Segment 2 (Alternative 3A)
This 2035 Build forecast redistributed forecasted volumes from the Traffic Forecast for
TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C) to account for a
minor change in the frontage road configuration at the western terminus of the project.
This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Final Addendum to Year 2035 Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum
completed in November 2009
 Addendum Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum completed in February
2010
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
Final EIS
E2-4
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 5
F. NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build
Traffic Forecast Memorandum
This forecast was used to confirm the Draft EIS analysis of existing and design year no-build
conditions and is referenced in the Final EIS Errata. The updated 2008 and 2035
No-Build forecasts were prepared due to No-Build forecast discrepancies in the Traffic
Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C).
Additional discussion is included in Attachment A (Monroe Bypass No-Build Traffic
Forecast Summary Memorandum).
G. Monroe Connector / Bypass Year 2025 Build Toll Alternative 3A Traffic Volume
Projections
This forecast was provided to the Design-Build teams during construction procurement.
The Design-Build teams were given an option of designing the project to the 2035 traffic
forecast volumes and phase constructing the project based on the 2025 year traffic
forecast volumes. Ultimately, the Design-Build teams did not choose the option of phase
constructing using the 2025 year traffic forecast volumes.
1.3 Traffic and Revenue Studies
A Traffic and Revenue Study is a revenue forecast. The purpose of a Traffic and Revenue
Study is to analyze the potential project revenue associated with the proposed toll road.
Therefore, these studies are developed as part of the project financing efforts and are
developed differently than a project level traffic forecast. Two of the major differences in a
Traffic and Revenue Study are the socioeconomic data used and the travel demand model
used. The project level forecasts are based on the socioeconomic data and the travel
demand model as developed and approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) and other data as described in Section 1.1. The Traffic and Revenue Study uses
socioeconomic data developed by an independent economist. The Traffic and Revenue
Study modifies the travel demand model including the traffic analysis zone structure, link
properties, link connections, and value of time assumptions. The following list describes the
uses of the Traffic and Revenue Studies developed during the project development process:
H. Monroe Connector/Bypass 2009 Update to Preliminary Study
This preliminary traffic and revenue forecast is an update to the Monroe Connector
Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study issued in October 2006. These traffic and
revenue forecasts were developed to support the project financing efforts. The Monroe
Connector/Bypass 2009 Update to Preliminary Study (Table 1, H) is referenced in the
Final EIS.
I. Proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study, Final
Report
This final traffic and revenue forecast was developed to support the project financing
efforts and was not used in any analysis to support the project level traffic forecast.
(Note: A Draft Final Report was issued in August 2010). Table 4 list Monroe/Connector
Bypass estimated 2015, 2020 and 2030 weekday traffic volumes.
E2-5
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 6
2. Are the current No-Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
The current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecast from the document NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum
(Table 1, F) was used to confirm the analysis of 2007 existing and 2030 design year no-build
conditions used in the Draft EIS. The analysis was confirmed by quantitatively
demonstrating 2035 forecast volumes were higher than 2030 No-Build volumes and
qualitatively concluding US 74 operations would worsen with higher 2035 No-Build forecast
volumes.
To determine if the current No-Build traffic forecast is still valid, it is necessary to reasonably
determine if an updated No-Build forecast is expected to have lower, equal or higher
forecast volumes. If forecast volumes are expected to be equal to or higher than the current
No-Build forecast used in the 2007 existing and 2030 design year analysis, then it is
reasonable to conclude an updated No-Build forecast would not change the conclusions in
the Draft EIS. The following information was used to validate the 2007/2030 No-Build traffic
forecasts:
 2012 NCDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes,
 Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM11v1.1,
 Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM14v1.0 output data provided by
CRTPO,
 2009 socioeconomic (SE) data,
 Existing US 74 corridor travel time runs,
 Current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecasts.
Based on a meeting with NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) on March 21, 2013
and the document Guidelines to Determine When to Request an Updated Traffic Forecast1
(NCDOT TPB, February 24, 2009), the current No-Build traffic forecasts meet the guidelines
that indicate the existing forecast is valid and an updated forecast is not warranted. All of
these guidelines are met since no new alternatives have been identified, the current let date
of the project is less than the Future Forecast Year plus 20 years, the study area is not
experiencing growth not previously considered in the forecast, and the traffic forecast is not
five years older than the Base Year.
2.1 2012 NCDOT AADT Volumes
Existing traffic volumes are a primary factor in determining base year forecast volumes,
such as were used for the 2007 No-Build forecast. For this reason, 2007 and 2012
NCDOT AADT’s were compared along the US 74 corridor to determine if an updated
base year traffic forecast would be expected to have higher volumes than the current
2007 No-Build forecasts. Over the five year period from 2007 to 2012, average volumes
along the US 74 corridor cumulatively grew approximately zero percent, based on
available AADT data. Based on historical AADT growth trends, it is reasonable to
conclude that an updated base year forecast (i.e. 2013) would generally be equal to the
2007 No-Build Forecast. 2007 and 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes are listed in Table 5.
It is appropriate to compare cumulative corridor changes in terms of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and individual segment volume and percent changes. Individual
segment traffic volumes include higher degrees of variability inherent in specific traffic
1 https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/ProjectLevelTrafficForecasting.aspx
E2-6
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 7
data base on the placement of traffic counting equipment, daily, monthly and seasonal
variations in data collection, weather and other factors. Corridor VMT considers the
entire corridor, volumes and distance of each corridor segment and calculates VMT
based on multiplying daily segment volumes times segment length. For the purposes of
this memo, comparing overall corridor VMT and percent changes is more appropriate in
identifying general trends in traffic patterns. Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74
segment distances used to calculate VMT for all tables are shown on Table 7.
2.2 Comparison of 2030 No-Build MRM05v1.0 to 2035 No-Build MRM11v1.1 Model Data
The Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, referred to as the MRM, is the primary
tool for evaluating existing and future travel in the Metrolina Region at the planning level.
For project-level traffic forecasting, the MRM is just one tool and associated raw model
outputs are just one piece of data used in the forecasting process. The MRM is
continually updated through the Metrolina Region planning process. The initial No-Build
traffic forecast (Table 1, A) was prepared using MRM05v1.0. Since then three model
versions have been developed, in order of release date: MRM06, MRM08 and MRM11.
MRM11v1.1 was used for the purpose of evaluating the traffic forecasting process used
to develop the initial No-Build traffic forecast (Table 1, A). This model version includes
all the projects as shown in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. A 2035 No-Build
MRM11v1.1 model was developed by removing the Monroe Connector/Bypass links.
The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment for the 2030 No-Build forecast
(Table 1, A), based on the MRM05v1.0 and 2005 SE data, was compared to 2035 No-
Build raw model daily volume assignment from the MRM11v1.1. The 2009 SE data was
used to evaluate how changes in raw model output data may affect an updated future
year No-Build traffic forecast. Raw model output is an important factor in developing
traffic forecasts by, but not limited to, determining growth rates from base year to future
year scenarios, traffic volume orders of magnitude, volume trends along facilities and
future year volumes for new location facilities. Based on a comparison of cumulative
2030 to 2035 No-Build raw model daily volumes along the US 74 corridor, the 2035 No-
Build increases 17 percent over the five year period, corresponding to a three percent
annual growth rate. Raw model daily assignment volumes range from 23,000 to 70,300
and 21,200 to 101,600 for 2030 MRM05v1.0 with 2005 SE data to 2035 MRM11v1.1
with 2009 SE data, respectively. Based on this comparison, an updated future year No-
Build forecast (i.e. 2035) would reasonably be expected to have volumes equal to or
greater than the 2030 No-Build forecast. Thus, an updated No-Build traffic forecast
would not change the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Table 5 lists raw model daily volume
assignment and VMT percent change for both scenarios.
2.3 Comparison of No-Build Scenario Model Data from 2030 MRM06v1.1 to 2030 and
2040 MRM14v1.0
As previously stated, MRM14v1.0 output was provided by CRTPO (formerly MUMPO),
which is compared and summarized in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
The raw model daily volume assignment data from a run of 2030 MRM05v1.0 was
compared to a model run using the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 SE data). It
is important to note that the No-Build model scenarios do not include the Monroe
Connector/Bypass.
Along the existing US 74 corridor, there is some variability between the 2030
MRM05v1.0 and the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 model results, with a general trend of
E2-7
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 8
higher daily assignment in MRM14v1.0 along the western portion of US 74 and lower
daily assignment along the eastern portion. When comparing the 2030 MRM05v1.0 and
the 2030 MRM14v1.0 model results, the cumulative VMT changes equate to a 4 percent
decrease along the US 74 corridor with 8 of the 31 total segments having higher
volumes. When comparing the 2030 MRM05v1.0 and the 2040 MRM14v1.0 model
results, the cumulative VMT changes equate to a 3 percent increase along the US 74
corridor with 20 of the 31 total segments having higher volumes. Overall corridor VMT
results indicate that both the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 model results show substantial
growth when compared with the existing NCDOT AADT traffic volumes along US 74.
Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM14v1.0) and SE data (2013), the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still generally
attracting similar levels of demand as MRM05v1.0 and 2005 SE data used in the 2030
No-Build forecast. It is reasonable to conclude that the 2040 MRM14v1.0 assigns
similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the US 74
compared to MRM05v1.0. Thus, an updated No-Build traffic forecast would not change
the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Table 5 lists raw model daily volume assignment and
VMT percent change for each scenario.
2.4 Comparison of 2030 and 2040 No-Build Scenario Model Data from MRM14v1.0
No-Build Scenario model data was compared between 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0
model runs. These results are shown in Table 5. The data between the two model runs
is based on 2013 SE data and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2040 segment
daily traffic assignments exceed the 2030 MRM14v1.0 results. On the existing US 74
facility, volumes increase from approximately 1 percent to 10 percent between the 2030
and 2040 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 7 percent increase
along the US 74 corridor.
The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase on the US 74 corridor between the 2030 and 2040 time periods.
Thus, 2040 No-Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected to
demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along US 74, further substantiating the viability
of and need for the project.
2.5 US 74 Corridor Travel Time Runs
The US 74 corridor from I-485 to Elm Street in Marshville is approximately 22.5 miles in
length and includes 30 signalized intersections, multiple unsignalized intersections, and
multiple driveway access points. 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes range from 23,000 to
57,000 and are projected to increase to a new range from 31,600 to 89,100 based on
2035 No-Build forecast volumes (Table 1, F). This means that 2012 NCDOT AADT
volumes would increase in the range of 9,800 to 33,300 vehicles per day (vpd) (or
between 20 percent to 81 percent) along the US 74 corridor. See Table 6 for the
comparison of 2012 NCDOT AADT and 2035 No-Build forecast volumes. This growth in
US 74 traffic volumes will negatively impact corridor operations by increasing
congestion, reducing travel speeds, and increasing travel times. 2013 existing travel
time runs were collected in March 2013 along the US 74 corridor. Per the US 74
Corridor Travel Time Comparison memorandum (HNTB, October 24, 2013), “US 74
average corridor travel speeds are limited to less than 50 mph, even during off-peak
periods and free-flow conditions with very little to no congestion”. These travel time runs
reflect existing conditions and account for all US 74 highway improvements implemented
E2-8
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 9
between 2007 and the present. The 2013 travel time runs verify that US 74 does not
operate as a high speed facility.
Based on 2012 NCDOT AADT’s, MRM11v1.1 (with 2009 socioeconomic data), and
MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 socioeconomic data), an updated base year and future year forecast
would reasonably be expected to have equal to or higher forecast volumes than the current
no-build forecasts used in the analysis of existing and design year no-build conditions. In
addition, 2013 existing travel time runs along the US 74 corridor verify US 74 does not
operate as a high speed facility. Comparison of 2035 No-Build traffic volume increases to
2012 AADT’s also realistically demonstrate that additional future congestion will continue to
decrease operating speeds along the US 74 corridor, further impairing the ability to provide
high speed mobility. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that updated No-Build forecasts
would not change the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Based on this assessment of all
available information, the current No-Build traffic forecasts are still valid for the purpose they
were used.
3. Are the current Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
The Build forecast used in the project level forecasted traffic is titled Traffic Forecast for TIP
Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C) and contained 2008 and
2035 Build Scenario data. This forecast utilized the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand
Model, MRM06v1.1, and 2005 socioeconomic (SE) data. The validity of the 2035 Build
forecasts were assessed by comparing the 2030 MRM06v1.1 raw model daily volume
assignment with 2030 and 2035 Build raw model daily volume assignments utilizing
MRM11v1.1 and 2009 SE data and 2035 and 2040 Build raw model daily volume
assignments utilizing MRM14v1.0 and 2013 SE data.
The regional model, such as the Metrolina Regional Model, is used as a tool in the
development of traffic forecasts and raw model daily volumes are just one of the many
pieces of data used to develop traffic forecast volumes. It is important to note that a travel
demand model (TDM) is not an exact measure of existing or future traffic volumes but is a
tool to generally measure impacts of growth and development and help forecast travel
characteristics at the planning-level. The TDM employs a mathematical approach to
understanding how changes in land use, population, and area employment will impact the
transportation system. The Metrolina Regional Model encompasses multiple counties in two
states and was developed and calibrated as a tool to evaluate existing and future travel
demands on a regional basis. Raw model volumes for specific roadway links can be
extracted from the regional model but inherently have levels of variability compared to
existing and traffic forecast volumes. The accuracy of raw model volumes to existing and
future conditions is based on a variety of factors: existing and future roadway network
detail, calibration parameters, accuracy of future land use, population, area employment
estimates, and other factors. Therefore, it is not appropriate to directly compare raw model
daily volumes to balanced traffic forecast volumes. General comparisons of raw model daily
volumes from the Build Scenario models can be used as validation of the results from
previous Build Scenario forecasts, since those forecasts use model results as one of the
factors in developing the forecast.
Based on a meeting with NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) on March 21, 2013
and the document Guidelines to Determine When to Request an Updated Traffic Forecast
2 (NCDOT TPB, February 24, 2009), the current Build traffic forecasts meet the guidelines
E2-9
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 10
that indicate the existing forecast is valid and an updated forecast is not warranted. All of
these guidelines are met since no new alternatives have been identified, the current let date
of the project is less than the Future Forecast Year plus 20 years, the study area is not
experiencing growth not previously considered in the forecast, and the traffic forecast is not
five years older than the Base Year.
The following three comparisons can be made to address the current validity of the previous
Build Scenario traffic forecast results. Comparative results are shown in Table 7.
3.1 Comparison of 2030 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM06v1.1 to MRM11v1.1
Since the 2035 WSA Build Scenario forecast (Table 1, C) was developed with the use of
the (then current) 2030 MRM06v1.1 (with 2005 SE data), the raw model daily volume
assignment data from a run of MRM06v1.1 was compared to a model run using the
MRM11v1.1 (with 2009 SE data). It is important to note that both model scenarios
included the Monroe Connector/Bypass. For the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, MRM11v1.1 assigns higher traffic (8 percent to 30 percent) to
the western portion of the Bypass than MRM06v1.1. Conversely, MRM11v1.1 has lower
projected daily assignments (9 percent to 27 percent decreases from MRM06v1.1) in the
central and eastern portions of the project. Along the existing US 74 corridor, there is
some variability between the two model results, with a general trend of higher daily
assignment in MRM11v1.1 (29 of 31 segments have higher volumes). In many cases, -
Y- Line model volumes (the route intersecting the Monroe Connector/Bypass) are lower
in MRM11v1.1 than MRM06v1.1. However, direct comparisons of individual -Y- Line
volumes directly north and south of the Monroe Bypass includes too much individual
variability to provide reasonable comparisons.
For raw model assignment, it is appropriate to consider cumulative changes on the
corridor in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and changes on individual segments,
as previously discussed in Section 2.1. Examining corridor VMT presents overall and
regional traffic differences that more appropriately account for the inherent variability of
individual links based on different segment lengths, characteristics, loading points and
the impact of centroid connectors within the model. Potential reasons for variability
along individual segments are different socioeconomic growth assumptions, different
model networks and link characteristics, and different model methodologies for trip
distribution and assignment. To compare -Y- Line VMT, a segment distance of 0.5 miles
for each -Y- Line north and south of the Monroe Connector/Bypass was determined to
account for ramp offsets, laneage tie-ins and grade changes. By using the same
segment distance for all -Y- Lines, all facility segments were calculated similarly to
determine VMT. Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 7
percent decrease along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 19 percent increase along the
US 74 corridor and a 24 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM11v1.1), SE data (2009), and methodology, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still
generally attracting similar levels of demand as MRM06v1.1 and 2005 SE data used in
the 2030 Build forecast. In addition, the updated model is predicting more demand for
the existing US 74 corridor. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the MRM11v1.1
assigns similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the
Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 compared to MRM06v1.1.
2 https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/ProjectLevelTrafficForecasting.aspx
E2-10
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 11
3.2 Comparison of 2030 and 2035 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM11v1.1
The next necessary comparison is to compare Build Scenario model data from the 2030
MRM11v1.1 model to results from a 2035 MRM11v1.1 model run. This comparison was
made using the methodology previously described in Section 2.2. These results are
shown in Table 7. The data between the two model runs is based on the same set of
2009 SE data, and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2035 segment daily traffic
assignments exceed the 2030 MRM11v1.1 results. On the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, volumes increase from 7 percent to 11 percent and are
expected to range between 21,600 and 67,400 in 2035. On the existing US 74 facility,
volumes increase from 5 percent to 15 percent between the 2030 and 2035 model runs.
Individual -Y- Line facilities show increases between 4 percent and 57 percent between
2030 and 2035 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 9 percent
increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 7 percent increase along the US 74
corridor and a 7 percent increase cumulatively for -Y- Line locations. These increases
are not expected to impact the interchange footprints for the Monroe Connector/Bypass
facility.
The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase for all study area facilities between the 2030 and 2035 time
periods. Thus, 2030 Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected
to demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along the Monroe Connector/Bypass Facility,
existing US 74, and project study area -Y- Lines. This would further substantiate the
viability of and need for the project.
3.3 Comparison of 2035 Build MRM11v1.1 to 2030 Build MRM06v1.1 Model Data used
in the Build Scenario Traffic Forecast
As a final comparison, the 2035 MRM11v1.1 daily traffic assignment data was compared
to the original 2030 MRM06v1.1 data used in the development of the 2030 Build
Scenario forecasts. Along the new Monroe Connector facility, 2035 MRM11v1.1
assignments are higher than 2030 MRM06v1.1 data on the western portion of the
project, but are still less (between 1 percent and 19 percent smaller) than the 2030
MRM06v1.1 data on the eastern portion of the project. US 74 corridor results are higher
(for 30 of 31 segments) and have a greater variance range (3 percent to 90 percent
increases) for the 2035 MRM11v1.1 results compared to the 2030 MRM06v1.1 results. -
Y- Line data results have six segments showing increased daily assignment, seven
segments showing decreased assignment, and one segment unchanged between 2035
data and 2030 data. Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to
a 1 percent increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 27 percent increase along
the US 74 corridor and an 18 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
Similar to assessments made previously, potential reasons for the variability include the
different SE data sets, different model networks and network characteristics, and model
assignment methodologies employed in the two MRM versions. Even with the variability
of the results, the overall trend along the new location facility shows consistently
increasing volumes from east to west between the two model data sets. The model run
comparison also shows the potential traffic volume growth between 2030 and 2035
along existing US 74 even with the Monroe Connector facility. It is reasonable to
conclude that a traffic forecast for the Build Scenario that utilizes the latest MRM11v1.1
network and 2009 SE data in a similar manner to which they were employed for the
2008 and 2035 Build Scenario forecast would produce results that are to the same
magnitude, if not greater (based on the data examined in these three comparisons), than
E2-11
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 12
the original 2008 and 2035 Build Scenario forecast data. Comparative results are shown
in Table 7.
The differences between MRM06v1.1 and MRM11v1.1 raw model daily volume assignment,
and the current Build traffic forecasts indicate that the magnitude of traffic along the Monroe
Connector/Bypass and US 74 would still show the need for the project, and benefits to the
existing US 74 corridor from the project, as currently supported by the Build forecast utilized
in the project development process.
3.4 Comparison of 2030 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM06v1.1 to MRM14v1.0
As previously stated, Build MRM14v1.0 output was provided by CRTPO (formerly
MUMPO), which is compared and summarized in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.
The raw model daily volume assignment data from a run of MRM06v1.1 was compared
to a model run using the MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 SE data). It is important to note that
both model scenarios included the Monroe Connector/Bypass. For the new location
Monroe Connector/Bypass facility, MRM14v1.0 assigns higher traffic (4 percent to 32
percent) to the western portion of the Bypass than MRM06v1.1. Conversely,
MRM14v1.0 has lower projected daily assignments (13 percent to 38 percent decreases
from MRM06v1.1) in the central and eastern portions of the project. Along the existing
US 74 corridor, there is some variability between the two model results, with a general
trend of higher daily assignment in MRM14v1.0 along the western portion of US 74 and
lower daily assignment along the eastern portion (15 of 31 total segments have higher
volumes). In many cases, -Y- Line model volumes (the route intersecting the Monroe
Connector/Bypass) are lower in MRM14v1.0 than MRM06v1.1. However, direct
comparisons of individual -Y- Line volumes directly north and south of the Monroe
Bypass includes too much individual variability to provide reasonable comparisons.
Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 12 percent decrease
along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 4 percent increase along the US 74 corridor and
a 29 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM14v1.0), SE data (2013), and methodology, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still
generally attracting similar levels of demand as MRM06v1.1 and 2005 SE data used in
the 2030 Build forecast. In addition, the updated model is predicting more demand for
the existing US 74 corridor. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the MRM14v1.0
assigns similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the
Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 compared to MRM06v1.1.
3.5 Comparison of 2030 and 2040 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM14v1.0
The next necessary comparison is to compare Build Scenario model data from the 2030
MRM14v1.0 model to results from a 2040 MRM14v1.0 model run. This comparison was
made using the methodology previously described in Section 2.2. These results are
shown in Table 7. The data between the two model runs is based on the same set of
2013 SE data, and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2040 segment daily traffic
assignments exceed the 2030 MRM14v1.0 results. On the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, volumes increase from 3 percent to 14 percent and are
expected to range between 21,300 and 64,800 in 2040. On the existing US 74 facility,
volumes increase from approximately zero percent to 13 percent between the 2030 and
2040 model runs. Individual -Y- Line facilities show increases between 3 percent and 21
E2-12
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 13
percent between 2030 and 2040 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate
to a 10 percent increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 8 percent increase
along the US 74 corridor and a 13 percent increase cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
These increases are not expected to impact the interchange footprints for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility.
The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase for all study area facilities between the 2030 and 2040 time
periods. Thus, 2030 Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected
to demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along the Monroe Connector/Bypass Facility,
existing US 74, and project study area -Y- Lines. This would further substantiate the
viability of and need for the project
3.6 Comparison of 2040 Build MRM14v1.0 to 2030 Build MRM06v1.1 Model Data used
in the Build Scenario Traffic Forecast
As a final comparison, the 2040 MRM14v1.0 daily traffic assignment data was compared
to the original 2030 MRM06v1.1 data used in the development of the 2030 Build
Scenario forecasts. Along the new Monroe Connector facility, 2040 MRM14v1.0
assignments are higher than 2030 MRM06v1.1 data on the western portion of the
project, but are still less (between 2 percent and 30 percent smaller) than the 2030
MRM06v1.1 data on the eastern portion of the project. US 74 corridor results are
generally higher on the western portion of the corridor and generally lower on the
eastern portion and have a greater variance range (31 percent decrease to 55 percent
increase) for the 2040 MRM14v1.0 results compared to the 2030 MRM06v1.1 results. -
Y- Line data results have three segments showing increased daily assignment and nine
segments showing decreased assignment between 2040 data and 2030 data. Volumes
on Forest Hills School Road north and south of the proposed Monroe Bypass were not
included in the MRM14v1.0 output provided by CRTPO. Based on the overall corridor,
cumulative VMT changes equate to a 4 percent decrease along the Monroe
Connector/Bypass, a 12 percent increase along the US 74 corridor and an 20 percent
decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations. Similar to assessments made previously,
potential reasons for the variability include the different SE data sets, different model
networks and network characteristics, and model assignment methodologies employed
in the two MRM versions. Even with the variability of the results, the overall trend along
the new location facility shows consistently increasing volumes from east to west
between the two model data sets. The model run comparison also shows the potential
traffic volume growth along the western portion of existing US 74 and potential traffic
volume decreases along eastern portions of existing US 74 between 2030 and 2040
even with the Monroe Connector facility. It is reasonable to conclude that a traffic
forecast for the 2040 Build Scenario that utilizes the latest MRM14v1.0 network and
2013 SE data in a similar manner to which they were employed for the 2008 and 2035
Build Scenario forecast would produce results that are to the same magnitude, if not
greater (based on the data examined in these three comparisons), than the original 2008
and 2035 Build Scenario forecast data and would further substantiate the viability of and
need for the project. Comparative results are shown in Table 7.
4. How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect traffic volumes on the US 74
corridor?
Five separate scenarios were analyzed to assess the effects that the Monroe
Connector/Bypass may have on projected traffic volumes on existing US 74.
E2-13
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 14
4.1 Comparison of the Traffic Forecast Used in the NEPA Document
Table 8 compares data from the 2035 No-Build (Table 1, F) and 2035 Build (Table 1, C)
Traffic Forecast Scenarios along the existing US 74 corridor. The results show a
reduction in traffic along the corridor in the range of 600 to 34,200 vehicles per day from
the No-Build to Build Scenario. This equates to a range of 1 percent to 54 percent, with
an average reduction of 30 percent for overall corridor VMT.
4.2 Comparison of the 2030 MRM06v1.1 Model Results
Since the MRM06v1.1 (utilizing 2005 SE data) was used in the development of the 2008
WSA Traffic Forecast that is included in the NEPA documentation, comparisons of No-
Build and Build 2030 raw model daily volume assignments are included in Table 9. The
travel demand model is the primary source of making estimates of traffic diversion and
network traffic flow changes to/from existing facilities onto a new alignment facility such
as the Monroe Connector/Bypass. The only difference in the two travel demand models
is the inclusion of the Monroe Connector/Bypass links.
As shown in Table 9, construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass caused 2030 daily
traffic assignments to reduce along US 74 in the range of 4,800 to 21,900 vehicles per
day. This resulted in percentage reductions of 11 percent to 51 percent of daily traffic
along the corridor from 2030 No-Build data, and an average percent reduction of 31
percent for the overall corridor VMT.
4.3 Comparison of the 2035 MRM11v1.1 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM11v1.1 travel demand model, with updated 2009 SE data and network
information, a third comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2035. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous two
comparisons, 2035 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 5,300 vpd to 25,100
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 11 percent and 45 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 19 percent for the overall corridor VMT.
4.4 Comparison of the 2030 MRM14v1.0 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM14v1.0 travel demand model, with updated 2013 SE data and network
information, a fourth comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2030. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous
three comparisons, 2030 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 7,000 vpd to 20,900
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 14 percent and 57 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 24 percent for the overall corridor VMT.
E2-14
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 15
4.6 Comparison of the 2040 MRM14v1.0 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM14v1.0 travel demand model, with updated 2013 SE data and network
information, a fifth comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2040. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous four
comparisons, 2040 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 8,000 vpd to 18,800
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 15 percent and 56 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 24 percent for the overall corridor VMT.
Summarizing the five comparisons to forecast and travel demand model results made
above, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is expected to reduce traffic volumes along the
existing US 74 corridor for every corridor segment in the project study area in the Build
condition. Some traffic on existing US 74 is expected to divert to the new facility, thus
reducing congestion and improving traffic operations along the existing US 74 corridor with
construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
5. How could changes in socioeconomic data affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project?
Various regional socioeconomic forecasting processes and updates have occurred over the
last decade in association with updated versions of the Metrolina Regional Model. Table 10
summarizes the various socioeconomic data, file name, model version and final forecast
year. Section 4.0 of the Monroe Connector/Bypass Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Technical Report (Baker, May 2013) provides a detailed review of socioeconomic forecast
data.
Table 10 – Metrolina Regional Model Socioeconomic (SE) Data Versions
SE Data
(Forecast) Name
TAZ
File Name
Associated
Model Version
Final
Forecast Year
2005 SE Data SE_Year_taz2934
MRM05v1.0
MRM06v1.0
MRM06v1.1
2030
2008 SE Data SE_Year_081024 MRM08v1.0 2035
2008 Interim Data SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim None 2035
2009 SE Data SE_Year_091028
MRM09v1.0
MRM11v1.0
MRM11v1.1
2035
2013 SE Data* LANDUSE_TAZYEAR_131203 MRM14v1.0 2040
* Not available or included in ICE Technical Report (Baker, May 2013).
The Metrolina Regional Model, MRM11v1.1, was used as the base model to evaluate raw
model daily volume assignment for 2035 No-Build and Build conditions utilizing 2005, 2008
Interim and 2009 socioeconomic data. MRM05v1.0 and MRM06v1.1 were also utilized in
their respective traffic forecasts, as previously listed in Table 1. MRM08v1.0 and
MRM09v1.0 were not specifically utilized for traffic forecasts in the project development
process. 2008 socioeconomic data was not evaluated or compared in this memorandum,
since it was not used in any traffic forecast or traffic and revenue study. Referencing 2005
SE data raw model daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) as the baseline, 2008 Interim and
2009 SE data VMT along the US 74 corridor increased 5 percent for the No-Build and 2 to 3
E2-15
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 16
percent and 5 percent along the Monroe Bypass and US 74 for the Build, respectively.
Changes in raw model daily vehicles miles traveled are to be expected and appropriate
when comparing various socioeconomic data which are based on a variety of different
information, assumptions, time periods and horizon years. This comparison shows that
even while differences existing between various socioeconomic data, the resulting VMT are
generally consistent (within 5 percent along US 74 for the No-Build and within 2 to 3 percent
along the Monroe Bypass for the Build). Table 11 lists raw model daily volume assignment
for segments along the Monroe Connector/Bypass project and US 74 corridor for No-Build
and Build conditions with 2005, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data.
As of February 3, 2014, the MRM14v1.0 model and associated output was provided by
CRTPO (formerly MUMPO). In an effort to consider all available information, this memo was
revised to include a comparison of MRM14v1.0 raw model output for future Build scenarios
as discussed in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.
Based on a direct comparison of 2005 SE, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data, the
socioeconomic data sets have relatively similar volume assignments and corridor vehicle
miles traveled within 2 to 3 percent and 5 percent for the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US
74 corridor, respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that the differences between the three
sets of socioeconomic data would not substantially change the traffic forecast.
6. How could changes in the socioeconomic data related to indirect and cumulative
effects affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Based on the Monroe Connector/Bypass Indirect and Cumulative Effects Technical Report
(Baker, May 2013), socioeconomic data was developed for a 2030 Build RPA
(Recommended Preferred Alternative) scenario. This forecast of socioeconomic data is
referenced as 2009 ICE data. The Metrolina Regional Model, MRM11v1.1, was run with
one set of socioeconomic data (2009 SE data) for the 2030 No-Build scenario and two sets
of socioeconomic data (2009 SE data and 2009 ICE data) for the 2030 Build scenario. The
only difference between the two Build model runs was the change in socioeconomic data.
The raw model daily volume assignment along the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74
corridor were compared for each model run (Table 12). Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
vehicle hours traveled (VHT) were compared for each model run (Table 13).
The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment comparison between the two Build
model runs shows little variability in the results (Table 12). When comparing the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project links as a whole, the corridor VMT difference is less than five
percent, with no individual link having a difference of greater than ten percent or 3,300
vehicles per day (vpd). When comparing the US 74 corridor as a whole, the daily bi-directional
volume difference is less than three percent, with 24 out of 30 individual links
having a difference of less than five percent or 2,800 vpd. The eastern terminus of the
project, from E. Franklin Street to the Monroe Connector/Bypass terminus, projects daily bi-directional
volume differences greater than ten percent or 1,800 vpd to 4,700 vpd.
The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment comparison between the No-Build
and each of the two Build model runs shows the similar variability in the results (Table 12).
When comparing the US 74 corridor as a whole, the daily bi-directional volume differences
between the No-Build and the two Builds vary greatly. In the Build scenarios, all US 74
segment volumes are projected to decrease and corridor VMT decreases between 18 to 21
percent compared to the No-Build scenario. The raw travel demand model daily volume
E2-16
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 17
assignment clearly shows that US 74 traffic volumes and corridor VMT is expected to be
less with construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
The VMT and VHT values were compared between Union County, Mecklenburg County,
and the entire MRM11v1.1 model network (Table 13). The change in VMT and VHT in
Union County is 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively, while changes in Mecklenburg
County and across the MRM network are zero percent. Based on these minor network
assignment changes between 2009 SE data and 2009 ICE data, it is reasonable to conclude
the changes in SE data would not substantially change existing or future Build traffic
forecast results.
E2-17
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 18
Conclusions
1. Question – What traffic forecasts were developed during the Monroe Connector/Bypass
project development process and what were they used for?
Answer – Detailed listing of the traffic forecasts prepared during the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project development process and uses are included on pages 1-5.
2. Question – Are the current No-Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were
used?
Answer – Yes. Based on the assessment of 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes, the Metrolina
Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM11v1.1, utilizing 2009 socioeconomic data, 2030 and
2040 MRM14v1.0, utilizing 2013 socioeconomic data, existing US 74 corridor travel time
runs, and current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecast information, the No-Build traffic forecasts
are still valid for the purposes they were used.
3. Question – Are the current Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
Answer – Yes. The differences between MRM06v1.1, MRM11v1.1 and MRM14v1.0 raw
model daily volume assignment, and the Build traffic forecasts indicate that the magnitude of
traffic along the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 would still show the need for the
project, and benefits to the existing US 74 corridor from the project, as currently supported
by the Build forecast utilized in the project development process.
4. Question – How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect traffic volumes on the US 74
corridor?
Answer – When comparing Build and No-Build Traffic Forecast Scenarios and 2030
MRM06v1.1, 2035 MRM11v1.1, 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 raw model network assignment
data, the Build volumes are lower than the No-Build for every segment along the US 74
corridor for the forecast results and model run results.
5. Question – How could changes in socioeconomic data affect the traffic forecast for the
Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Answer – Based on a direct comparison of 2005 SE, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data, the
socioeconomic data sets have relatively similar volume assignments with cumulative
corridor volumes within two percent and five percent for the Monroe Connector/Bypass and
US 74 corridor, respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that the differences between the
three sets of socioeconomic data would not substantially change the traffic forecast.
6. Question – How do changes in the socioeconomic data related to indirect and cumulative
effects affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Answer – Changes in SE data cause relatively minor changes in traffic volumes in the MRM
model runs. Based on the comparison of 2030 Build MRM11v1.1 model runs using 2009
SE data and 2009 ICE SE data, the volume changes and percent changes are not
substantial. The change in VMT and VHT in Union County is 3 percent and 4 percent
respectively, while changes in Mecklenburg County and across the MRM network are
approximately zero percent. These variations in raw model daily volume assignment will not
affect the conclusions of the traffic forecasting development process.
E2-18
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 19
Table 2 – US 74 Corridor No-Build Traffic Forecast Volumes
Comparison Type No-Build Traffic Forecast Volumes (Sec. 1)
Year 2007 2008 2008 2030 2035 2035
Scenario No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build
Classification Forecast Forecast Forecast Update Forecast Forecast Forecast Update
ID # Source
MAB,
June 2008
WSA,
Sept.

APPENDIX C APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX C
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE INFORMATION
 Review for Potential On-Site Mitigation (ESI, February 2010) Page C-1
 On-Site Mitigation Feasibility Assessment (Atkins, November 2011) Page C-16
 NCEEP Mitigation Credits Page C-24
 Carolina Heelsplitter Mitigation Page C-25
This page was intentionally left blank.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Carl Gibilaro, PE
PBS&J
FROM: Paul Petitgout
DATE: February 12, 2010
RE: Review for Potential On-Site Mitigation
Monroe Connector/Bypass
STIP R-3329 and R-2559
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
______________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this memorandum is to document potential on-site mitigation opportunities
within the project study area to possibly aid in meeting the compensatory mitigation requirements
of the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass. For purposes of this memorandum, “on-site” is
defined as an area in the vicinity of the preferred alternative, extending from the US 74/I-485
interchange near the town of Matthews in Mecklenburg County, to between the towns of
Wingate and Marshville along US 74 in Union County.
Site Selection Methodology
Potential restoration sites were identified by examining aerial photography in areas where
wetlands and streams were found to be coincident with disturbed land uses. Based on aerial
photography interpretation, areas judged to have restoration/enhancement potential were
recorded and those areas without potential were discounted. Specific methodology and data used
in identifying wetland and stream restoration sites are described separately in this section. Aerial
photography used in the identification of all restoration/enhancement sites was provided by
PBS&J. The aerial photography, in concert with other data sets including soils (SSURGO
database), hydrology, contour data (NCDOT), and county parcel data were used to locate the
potential mitigation areas.
Site selection criteria were developed with consideration for guidance from the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2003) and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP 2004). The following guidelines were generally observed:
C-1
2
Stream Restoration/Enhancement
• Stream projects must have a minimum of 50 feet conservation easement on both sides
of the stream for the entire project length. Easements are measured from the top of
the stream bank on both sides of the stream. The easement may be wider if there is
room for additional planting (up to 200 feet from the top on either side of the stream)
or if there is a wetland component to the project (no easement width limit).
o One side of stream must be free of utilities.
o Streams with a utility on one side must have a 50 foot easement in addition to
any existing utility easement. The width of the utility cannot count towards
the 50 foot requirement.
• The stream segment proposed for restoration must be greater than or equal to 2,000
linear feet in length; however, exceptions may be made under certain circumstances.
There is no maximum length for a stream project. Stream restoration opportunities
that are less than 2,000 linear feet, but involve relocation of the existing stream as a
result of the proposed roadway, were also considered.
• Less than 10 square miles drainage area (typically 1st and 2nd order streams, 3rd order
streams in some cases), and no greater than a 3rd order stream.
• Proposed stream segments can be perennial or intermittent as indicated on USGS 24K
Quadrangle Maps and/or in the NRCS Soil Surveys. No more than 50 percent of the
proposed restoration or enhancement project can be intermittent.
• Proposed stream segments cannot generally occur over more than three property
parcels that are under different ownership.
Wetland Restoration/Enhancement
• Hydric soils must be present (might be relic).
• Original wetland hydrology is altered by ditching, tile drains, filling, or other means
caused by human influences.
• Proposed wetland restoration area lacks appropriate wetland vegetation.
• Minimum of 2 acres (unless associated with a stream project) in size, but no
maximum.
• Site is not comprised entirely of invasive vegetation species (i.e. manageable within
reason).
After identification of potential mitigation opportunities, sites were further evaluated in the field.
Field evaluations at prospective mitigation sites were performed over the course of two days by
staff with extensive experience in mitigation implementation. Evaluations included an
C-2
3
assessment of soils, hydrology, vegetative cover, and landscape/watershed characteristics. Sites
were evaluated with consideration for an existing buffer and proximity to existing jurisdictional
systems. Notes were collected regarding species composition, soil matrix and chroma, and any
site constraints (e.g. active farming, culverts, utilities). Site photos were also collected.
Based on this review, ESI indentified over 25 sites, totaling approximately 2,000 acres that
potentially contain stream mitigation opportunities. Of the 25 sites that had mitigation potential,
21 of them were not recommended because they violated one or more of the guidelines listed
above. Four of the sites located during this review are considered viable mitigation opportunities
and are described below (Table 1), and their general locations depicted on Figure 1. It should be
noted that, in general, the mitigation opportunities extended across multiple parcels, which
makes procuring these areas as potential mitigation sites much more difficult. However, all of
the sites selected for review contain no more than three ownerships.
Table 1. Parcel Data for Selected Mitigation Opportunities.
PIN Owner Mailing Address Acreage Mitigation Site Number
M7081003
07081003
Vance Adam Sherin (and
others) –Heirs
7216 Oak Spring Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079
45.3
45.3 Site 1
07081002
Vance Adam Sherin (and
others) – Heirs
7403 Stinson-Hartis Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079 32.2 Site 1
K7078011 Crosland – Fairhaven LLC
227 W. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 84.6 Site 1
07078012C Kathleen Bowden
3725 Morningstar Drive
Mathews, NC 28105 17.1 Site 1
07027033 90
Carlton Tyson (and
others), Trustee
PO Box 748
Monroe, NC 28111 60.7 Site 2
07027033A Franklin W. Howey, Jr.
PO Box 429
Monroe, NC 28111 37.0 Site 2
08303014 Billy F. Acycoth
2211 White Store Road
Monroe, NC 28112 38.3 Site 3
08273001
Thomas Ray & Judy H.
Poplin
3310 Poplin Road
Monroe, NC 28110 182.0 Site 3
02211024
02211024 H
Thomas E. & Sarah H.
Traywick
PO Box 131
Wingate, NC 28174
16.4
38.5 Site 4
02211024 G NCDOT
206 Charter Street
Albemarle, NC 28001 66.8 Site 4
Following field evaluations, ten parcels were found that contain opportunities for stream
mitigation. These parcels are grouped into 4 sites (Sites 1-4) and are described below. Figures
and photographs for each site are also provided. All of the recommended sites will require
additional analysis and feasibility studies to determine the full mitigation potential.
Site 1: Oak Spring Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement
Site one (Figure 2, Photo Plate 1), the Oak Spring Road Site, is located approximately 2,500 feet
north of the intersection of Oak Spring Road and Stinson-Hartis Road, in western Union County.
The site consists of four tax parcels, two of which are under the same ownership. The potential
mitigation area consists of a severely degraded, 2,000 foot stream reach of North Fork Crooked
Creek. Cattle operations on this property have severely degraded the overall stability and water
quality of this reach of North Fork Crooked Creek. Stream enhancement potential exists due to
the reach’s degraded dimension and profile along with its non-existent riparian buffer. Riffles
C-3
4
and pools appear to be ill-formed and mid-channel bars are also forming, causing this stream
reach to become more unstable.
Stream enhancement techniques that could possibly be utilized for this reach include (but are not
limited to) bank stabilization, the use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream profile,
construction of bankfull benches (where appropriate), the planting of a riparian buffer, and
exclusion of the cattle from the restored riparian buffer area through fencing. No contact has
been initiated with the landowner(s). Additional analysis and feasibility studies will be required
to determine if stream mitigation activities are both practical and cost effective for this site.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5, depending on
the range of techniques that are prescribed for a particular site. With this range of multipliers in
mind, a stream reach of approximately 2,000 linear feet would generate approximately 800 to
2,000 stream mitigation units (SMU). The USACE, in conjunction with NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine the
mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.
Site 2: Rocky River Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement
Site two (Figure 3, Photo Plate 2) is located approximately 3,000 feet north of the intersection of
Rocky River Road and Secrest Shortcut Road. The site consists of two tax parcels that total
approximately 97.8 acres. The current land use would be characterized as cultivated agricultural
land. The site contains approximately 1,800 linear feet of perennial stream and 1,800 linear feet
of intermittent stream that would be available for mitigation. Both reaches can be generally
described as having relatively steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The
stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained buffer between the
stream and the cultivation activities.
Mitigation potential within Site 2 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 1,800 linear feet of perennial stream and 1,800 linear feet of intermittent stream.
Stream enhancement approaches that are appropriate for the perennial and intermittent reaches of
Site 2 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a bankfull benches (when necessary), the
use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream dimension and profile, and the planting a
riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability, increase channel shading, and provide
travel corridors for wildlife.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 3,600 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,440 to 3,600 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.
Site 3: Poplin Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement
Site three (Figure 4, Photo Plate 3) is located approximately 2,500 feet north of the intersection
of Poplin Road and Secrest Shortcut Road. The site consists of two tax parcels that total
C-4
5
approximately 220.3 acres. The current land use would be characterized as cultivated
agricultural land. The site contains approximately 4,225 linear feet of perennial stream that
would be available for mitigation. This reach can be generally described as having relatively
steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The stream banks are eroded in
some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained riparian area between the stream and the
cultivated agricultural land.
Mitigation potential within Site 3 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 4,225 linear feet of perennial stream. Stream enhancement approaches that are
appropriate for this perennial reach on Site 3 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a
bankfull benches (when necessary), the use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream
dimension and profile, and the planting a riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability,
increase channel shading, and provide travel corridors for wildlife.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 4,225 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,690 to 4,225 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.
Site 4: Poplin Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement
Site four (Figure 5, Photo Plate 4) is located approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of
Phifer Road and Forest Hills School Road. The site consists of three tax parcels that total
approximately 121.7 acres. The current land use would be characterized as pasture land. The
site contains approximately 425 linear feet of perennial stream and 2,100 linear feet of
intermittent stream that would be available for mitigation. Both reaches can be generally
described as having relatively steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The
stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained buffer between the
stream and the adjacent pasture land.
Mitigation potential within Site 4 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 425 linear feet of perennial stream and 2,100 linear feet of intermittent stream.
Stream enhancement approaches that are appropriate for the perennial and intermittent reaches of
Site 4 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a bankfull benches (when necessary), the
use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream dimension and profile, cattle exclusion fencing,
and the planting a riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability, increase channel
shading, and provide travel corridors for wildlife.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 2,525 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,010 to 2,525 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.
C-5
6
Wetland Mitigation Opportunities
During the review for potential wetland and stream mitigation sites, no wetlands sites were
revealed that met the site selection criteria described above. There may be the potential for
wetland mitigation created through the stream mitigation opportunities, but the amount would be
small (potentially less than 0.25 acre).
Literature Cited
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2004. Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 12 pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE Wilmington
District, Regulatory Branch. 26 pp + appendices.
Acknowledgement
ESI would like to acknowledge PBS&J for providing the template for this technical
memorandum.
C-6
kj
kj
kj
kj
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
US-74
NC-75
NC-84
NC-200
US-601
NC-205
NC-207
NC-218
NC-522
NC-16
NC-200
US-74
US-74
NC-200
US-601
NC-218
UUNNIIONN
SSTTAANNLLYY
MEECCKKLL EENNBBUURRG
CCAABBAARRRRUUSS
Potential On-Site Mitigation Overview
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 1.5 3
Miles
kj Sites*
Corridor Boundary*
Major Roads
County Boundaries
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
1
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers.
*Location and Extent is Approximate.
C-7
North Fork Crooked Creek
S008c
S028a
S012b
S032
S010
S011
S012a
S013d
S029c
S013a
S029b
S029a
S013b
S008c
W005
P03
P04
W020
K7078011
07081002
M7081003
K7081003
07078012C
PX04
OAK SPRING RD
STINSON HARDIS RD
STEVENS MILL RD
STRAND DR
FAIR SKY DR
BLUE IRIS DR
OSCAR ROBINSON DR
PESCA LN
WHITE OAK LN
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 300 600
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
2
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers. *Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 1
C-8
Site Photographs
Union County, North Carolina
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 1
Monroe Connector-Bypass
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate1.cdr
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
(704) 523-7225
(704) 523-7226 Fax
Photo 1: View of North Fork Crooked Creek and adjacent pastureland comprising Site 1.
Photo 2: View of eroding banks and extensive sediment deposition within Site 1.
C-9
South Fork Crooked Creek
UT to South Fork Crooked Creek
S047
S055
S051a
S052b
S054
S056c
S056b
S057b
S052c
S058c
S051c
S050a
S058d
S051b
S047
S047
P24
P18
W042
P23
W054
W036
P26
P22
W053
P19
W040c
P20
P25
W052
P21
P17 W049
W040d
W050
W040a
W038
W039
W037
W041
W040b
07027033 90
07027033A
ROCKY RIVER RD
SECREST SHORT CUT RD
HAYWOOD RD
CREEKSIDE DR
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 300 600
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
3
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers. *Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 2
C-10
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 1
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate1.cdr
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
(704) 523-7225
(704) 523-7226 Fax
Photo 1: View of North Fork Crooked Creek and adjacent pastureland comprising Site 1.
Photo 2: View of eroding banks and extensive sediment deposition within Site 1.
C-11
UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek
UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek
S064e
S068a
S070b
S071
S066b
S068d
S064c
S064d
S069
S064h
S068c
S068b
S064g
S067b
S074b
S064i
S070a
S064f
S064e
P35
P38
W074
P37
P36
P39
W070a
W071
P29
W068b
W072
W069b
W073b
w073a
08273001
08273001
08303014
08303014C
POPLIN RD
SECREST SHORT CUT RD
WILLIS LONG RD
CLEAR CREEK DR
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 300 600
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
4
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers. *Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 3
C-12
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 3
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate3.cdr
3
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
(704) 523-7225
(704) 523-7226 Fax
Photo 5: View of channelized UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek and adjacent agricultural field
within Site 3.
Photo 6: View of southwestern tributary exhibiting severe bank erosion and non-existent
riparian buffer within Site 3.
C-13
UT to Negro Head Creek
S161c
S161b
S164d
S164c
S161a
S176b
S172a
S162
S164a
S178
W176
W178
W197
W196
W192
W190
W193
W178
W177
W195
W205
W198
W191
W194
02211024H
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
WX214
WX177
WX194
SX162z
US 74 HWY
PHIFER RD
FOREST HILLS SCHOOL RD
PHIFER CIR
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 300 600
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
5
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers. *Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 4
C-14
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 4
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate4.cdr
4
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
(704) 523-7225
(704) 523-7226 Fax
Photo 7: View of unstable channel and adjacent pastureland within Site 4.
Photo 8: View of bank erosion and poor riparian buffer within Site 4.
C-15
To: Christy Shumate, North Carolina Turnpike Authority
From: Michael Gloden, Atkins
Date: November 16, 2011
Re: On-Site Mitigation Feasibility Assessment – Monroe Connector/Bypass (STIP No. R-3329/R-2559)
Condition ‘p’ of the Section 404 permit (SAW-2009-00876) issued to the North Carolina Turnpike
Authority (NCTA) for construction of the Monroe Connector-Bypass states:
p. Prior to commencing any work on the project, as defined by special condition (e), above, the
permittee shall provide a final mitigation plan, as approved by the District Engineer, for any on-site
mitigation proposed by the permittee, or, in the event on-site mitigation opportunities are
found to be not available to the permittee, he shall provide documentation of this to the District
Engineer prior to commencing any work on the project.
Four on-site mitigation opportunities for the Monroe Connector/Bypass Project were previously
identified by Environmental Services Incorporated (ESI) and summarized in the memo titled “Review for
Potential On-Site Mitigation” dated February 12, 2010. Atkins North America Inc. (Atkins) subsequently
reviewed the four sites and concurs with the ESI findings that the sites offer stream mitigation
opportunities within and nearby to the Alternative D Study corridor. This memo documents landowner
interest in voluntary mitigation opportunities and an evaluation of mitigation feasibility.
Landowner Contact
Atkins contacted landowners of each site (Sites 1-4, Figure 1) in order to determine their interest in
participating in a mitigation project on their land. Contact information was derived from recently
obtained parcel data available from Union County. Landowners of each site were sent a letter (attached)
explaining the opportunity and asked to return their response regarding participation in an enclosed
postage paid envelope. Of the eight landowners contacted four responded favorably, one was not
interested, and three did not respond. Landowner responses are attached to this memo and
summarized in the following table.
Mitigation
Site
PIN Owner Mailing Address Response
Site 1
M7081003,
K7081003
Vance Adam Sherin et al. - Heirs
7216 Oak Spring Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Not Interested
07081002 Vance Adam Sherin et al. - Heirs
7403 Stinson Hartis Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Not Interested
K7078011 MI Homes of Charlotte LLC
9335 Harris Corners Pky (Suite
100) Charlotte, NC 28269
Interested
0708012C Kathleen Bowden
3725 Morning Star Drive
Matthews, NC 28105
No Response
Site 2
07027033A Franklin W. Howey, Jr.
PO Box 429
Monroe, NC 28111
No Response
07027033 90 Carlton Tyson et al. – Trustee
PB Box 748
Monroe, NC 28111
Interested
C-16
Mitigation
Site
PIN Owner Mailing Address Response
Site 3
08303014 Billy F Aycoth, Sr. – Trustee
4548 Seacrest Shortcut Road
Monroe, NC 28110
No Response
08273001 Thomas Ray and Judy H. Poplin
3310 Poplin Road
Monroe, NC 28110
Interested*
Site 4
02211024H
Thomas E. and Sarah H.
Traywick
PO Box 131
Wingate, NC 28174
Interested
02211024G NCDOT
206 Charter Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
N/A
*Initial response has changed since the landowner entered into an option to purchase agreement with a private mitigation
banker.
Mitigation Feasibility
Atkins determined mitigation feasibility by considering landowner interest and performing a field review
and screening procedure for each site. The field review was conducted to update and verify information
provided by ESI and consisted of a qualitative assessment of mitigation potential and a review for site
constraints. The screening procedure was performed for viable sites and included a review of protected
species and significant natural areas documented by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP), a review
of cultural and archeological resources within or adjacent to the sites as documented in the Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS and FEIS), and a review of environmental records from an
Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report. The mitigation feasibility of each site is discussed in detail
below.
Site 1: Not Feasible for Mitigation
Site 1 is located along Oak Spring Road between Stevens Mill Road and Stinson Hartis Road in western
Union County (Figure 2). The Site consists of five tax parcels, of which only one is owned by a landowner
who responded favorably to participating in a mitigation project. The tax parcels are color-coded on
Figure 2 to indicate each landowner’s response. The stream within Site 1 previously identified for
enhancement potential (S008c) is approximately 2000 linear feet in length and located on or adjacent to
the property boundary that divides the five tax parcels. Stream mitigation guidelines (USACE 2003)
require a 50-foot riparian buffer along both stream banks which necessitates participation from all five
landowners of Site 1. The one interested landowner (PIN K7078011) only includes a portion of the total
stream length within the site and does not have ownership of both sides of the stream. Due to lack of
landowner interest necessary to provide the required buffer on each side of the stream, Site 1 is
deemed not feasible.
Site 2: Not Feasible for Mitigation
Site 2 is located north of the intersection of Rocky River Road and Secrest Shortcut Road (Figure 3). The
site consists of two tax parcels, of which only one is owned by a landowner who responded favorably to
participating in a mitigation project. The tax parcels are color-coded on Figure 3 to indicate each
landowner’s response. Site 2 is crossed by the Monroe Connector-Bypass project alignment as indicated
by the permitted construction limits (plus 40-feet) shown on Figure 3. Mitigation opportunities
previously identified within the Site include stream enhancement along S047 (located along the
C-17
property boundary between the two tax parcels), S056c (located within the parcel that did not respond),
and S055 (located within the tax parcel with mitigation interest by the owner). Total stream length is
approximately 2,940 linear feet (excluding the portion within the construction limits). The Site also
includes riparian wetland WX822. Due to lack of landowner interest on parcel 0727033A, stream S047 is
no longer feasible for mitigation. Stream S056c is also no longer feasible for mitigation since
participation by both landowners is necessary to allow for the required 50-foot riparian buffer along
both stream banks. A field review of the site for mitigation opportunities along the remaining resources
(stream S055 and wetland WX822) determined that an existing sewer easement is located adjacent to
the eastern stream bank. The sewer easement follows the entire length of stream S055 and
encompasses a large portion of wetland WX822. Sewer easements require routine maintenance and
therefore preclude the establishment of the required 50-ft riparian buffer. Due to lack of landowner
interest, site constraints from an existing sewer easement, and the crossing of the streams by the
Monroe Connector-Bypass, Site 2 is deemed not feasible.
Site 3: Not Available for Mitigation
Site 3 is located along Poplin Road, north of the intersection with Secrest Shortcut Road. The mitigation
opportunity was previously identified to include stream enhancement along approximately 4,225 linear
feet of stream. Site 3 is no longer available for on-site mitigation by NCTA because the landowners
have signed an option to purchase agreement with a private mitigation banker.
Site 4: Potentially Feasible for Mitigation
Site 4 is located along Forest Hill School Road, southeast of the intersection with Phifer Road, and is
adjacent to the Monroe Connector-Bypass project alignment (Figure 4). The site consists of two tax
parcels, one of which is owned by a landowner who responded favorably to participating in a mitigation
project, and the second tax parcel is owned by NCDOT. The site includes approximately 1,000 linear feet
of an intermittent stream (S161b) located between the Monroe Connector-Bypass mainline and an exit
ramp to Forest Hill School Road. Final design drawings for the Monroe Connector-Bypass show that
S161b will be culverted at each end and stormwater drainage from the new road will be diverted into
the stream at two locations. Mitigation opportunities on the site include stream enhancement (level
2) on S161b with potential for implementing additional best management practices (BMP) to treat
stormwater. Stream enhancement activities that may be appropriate for the site include sloping stream
banks for stabilization (when necessary), planting an appropriate riparian buffer, livestock exclusion, and
stormwater treatment. This project would require the purchase of approximately 2.3 acres of property
to provide a 50-foot buffer on each side of the stream. In addition, the purchase of an additional 2.7
acres of property located between S161b and the Monroe Connector- Bypass is recommended.
Purchase of this property would preclude the potential of a stream crossing to provide access and would
provide a buffer between the project and road. Stream enhancement level 2 of approximately 1,000
feet of stream channel with a mitigation multiplier of 2.5 will result in 400 stream mitigation units
from Site 4. (Multiplier of 2.5 is used because S161b is an intermittent stream).
C-18
The results of the environmental screening for Site 4 include the following:
• Surveys for historic archeological resources, architectural resources, and other cultural
resources were completed for the DEIS (with updates in the FEIS) within the design alternative
that includes Site 4. The survey did not find any cultural resources located within or adjacent to
the site that would prevent the implementation of a stream mitigation project.
• Surveys for protected species were also performed for the DEIS (with updates in the FEIS) within
the design alternative that includes Site 4 and no occurrences of any protected species were
identified.
• A recent review of the NHP database indicates that no managed areas, significant natural
heritage areas, or element occurrences are located within or adjacent to the site.
• A transaction screen map and report was obtained from EDR to identify potential
environmental constraints within the Site. The report includes environmental risk records and
locations of known environmental records such as hazardous waste sites, underground storage
tanks, water wells, oil and gas pipelines, and transmission lines. Site 4 was not listed on any
available databases searched by EDR and no known environmental records were found.
• Field investigations identified no historic architectural or archaeological resources, utility
easements, or structures that would prevent the implementation of a stream mitigation project.
Recommendation:
As described above, Sites 1 and 3 are not feasible due to the lack of landowner interest or inability to
acquire the site. Site 2 is not feasible due to lack of landowner interest and site constraints. Although
Site 4 does provide potential for stream mitigation, Atkins does not recommend this site as mitigation
for the following reasons:
1. relatively small size of the project (1000 linear feet)
2. S161b will be culverted at both ends of the project
3. potential impacts associated with stormwater discharges
Atkins believes that this analysis of the four on-site mitigation opportunities provides sufficient
documentation that these sites are not feasible as compensatory mitigation. Upon review and approval
of this document by the NCTA Atkins will prepare a letter to the USACE-Wilmington District, District
Engineer for NCTA signature transmitting these findings.
C-19
kj
kj
kj
kj
2.5 1.25 0 2.5
MilesW
Figure 1
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
MITIGATION SITE
LOCATIONS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County
Map Printed November 2011.
Data Sources:
Street Map (ESRI)
Right-of-Way (NCTA)
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
kj
Alternative D Study Corridor
Monroe Connector/Bypass Alignment
Mitigation Site
R-2559 Alignment
C-20
Oak Spring
Stinson Hartis
Stevens Mill
K7078011
07081002
M7081003
K7081003
07078012C
S008c
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Perennial Stream
50 Foot Buffer
Mitigation Interest
Yes
No
No Response
500 250 0 500
FeetW
Figure 2
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 1
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County
Map Printed November 2011.
C-21
07027033 90
07027033A
WX822
Rocky River
Secrest Short Cut
Haywood
S047
S055
S056 c
S047
S055
500 250 0 500
FeetW
Figure 3
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 2
Map Printed November 2011.
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Sewer
Streams
Perennial
Intermittent
50 FT Buffer
Wetland
Mitigation Interest
Yes
No Response
C-22
Phifer
Forest Hill School
02211024H
02211024G
S161b
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Intermittent Stream
50 FT Buffer
Mitigation Interest
Yes
NCDOT
500 250 0 500
FeetW
Figure 4
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 4
Map Printed November 2011.
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
C-23
The NCEEP sites that provided the mitigation credits for the Monroe Connector Bypass under USACE 404
permit #2009‐00876, and NCDWR 401 permit #2002‐0672, are listed in the table below. Credits for the
46,166 mitigation units for warm water streams, and 16.2 mitigation units for wetlands, needed within
the Yadkin CU 03040105, are an amalgamation of restoration, enhancement, creation, and preservation
from these sites. Site locations and additional information can be found at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/interactive‐mapping
Site Instituted
Mitigation Site Utilized IMS ID# Project Phase
9/18/2009 Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mit. Site 94147 Construction
7/28/2004 Beaver Dam-Drowning Creek II (Rankin Tract) 92164 Long Term Mgmt
4/11/2006 Helms 172 Monitoring Year 4
7/22/2003 Back Creek 17 Long Term Mgmt
6/28/2006 Big Cedar Creek 92532 Monitoring Year 5
9/27/2004 Lone Mountain 2 -Phase Two 92171 Long Term Mgmt
6/8/2006 Suther 370 Monitoring Year 3
6/30/2010 UT to Town Creek 94648 Construction
9/24/2009 Scaly Bark Creek Mitigation Site 94148 Monitoring Year 3
4/11/2005 Dutch Buffalo Creek Walker 92116 Long Term Mgmt
4/15/2005 Dutch Buffalo Creek Wickliff 92117 Long Term Mgmt
7/7/2005 Little River Cochran 92113 Long Term Mgmt
5/11/2005 Barnes Creek Grissom 92106 Long Term Mgmt
12/20/2004 Bishop Tract-Canal Branch 92162 Long Term Mgmt
1/31/2006 Uwharrie River Bingham 92108 Long Term Mgmt
10/9/2007 Uwharrie River Cochran 92109 Long Term Mgmt
2/1/2004 Lambert Tract-Uwharrie River Bluff 92160 Long Term Mgmt
1/23/2006 Drowning Creek IP Forest Investments 92121 Long Term Mgmt
7/7/2006 601 North Property 92546 Long Term Mgmt
6/30/2010 Buffalo Flats Restoration Site 94647 Monitoring Year 2
7/21/2006 Stricker Branch 92556 Close Out
7/18/2006 601 West Property 92545 Long Term Mgmt
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/interactive-mapping
C-24
C-25
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
C-31
C-32
APPENDIX D APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX D
ERRATA
This page was intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
D-1
APPENDIX D – DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ERRATA
Appendix D includes corrections and clarifications to the November 2013 Draft Supplemental
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED
In Section 1.1.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS (Evaluation of Need for Proposed Action),
the second full paragraph on page 1-2 states that “…NCDOT designated the US 74 corridor as a
Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) and it is also designated as part of the North Carolina
Intrastate System. Consistent with local planning documents, these state designations call for
this corridor to serve high-speed regional travel.” As footnoted in Section 1.1.1 of this Final
Supplemental Final EIS, the North Carolina Intrastate System (defined in NC General Statutes
136-179) was repealed in July 2013 by NC Session Law 2013-183 as part of the Strategic
Prioritization Funding Plan for Transportation Investments. This footnote should also have
been included in Section 1.1.1, Section 1.1.2, and Section 1.2.3 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS.
In Section 1.1.2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, the stated purpose of the project is to
“improve mobility and capacity within the project study area by providing a facility for the US 74
corridor from near I-485 in Mecklenburg County to between the towns of Wingate and
Marshville in Union County that allows for high-speed regional travel consistent with the
designations of the North Carolina SHC program and the North Carolina Intrastate System,
while maintaining access to properties along existing US 74.” A note should have been included
here to acknowledge that the North Carolina Intrastate System was repealed. This has been
corrected with the addition of a reference to footnote #2 in Section 1.1.2 of this Final
Supplemental Final EIS.
The North Carolina Intrastate System is also referenced in Section 1.2.3 of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, Transportation and Land Use Plans, which states that the proposed
action is included in local plans “in a manner that is consistent with the SHC and North
Carolina Intrastate System visions for the corridor.” This sentence should have been revised to
remove the reference to the North Carolina Intrastate System since this designation was
repealed prior to publication of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS.
The change in legislation does not change the substantive statements of the project purpose and
need, nor does it affect the alternatives screening process. Although the Intrastate System
legislation was repealed, high-speed travel is still designated for the corridor in the NC SHC
program. Therefore, the removal of the Intrastate System designation does not affect the
purpose or the need for the project as presented in Section 1 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS. Because the purpose and need for the project does not change, the alternatives screening
process described in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS therefore remains valid.
SECTION 1.1.1 – EVALUATION OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The language in the second paragraph of Section 1.1.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS
should have been updated to reflect the fact that although Union County has continued to be one
of the fastest growing counties in the state since 2010, it is not the fastest. In addition, this
paragraph noted that Union County is the only county adjacent to Mecklenburg County that
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -2 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
does not have a high-speed interstate-type facility connecting it to Mecklenburg County. This
statement fails to acknowledge that Lincoln County, NC and Lancaster County, SC share a small
portion of their borders with Mecklenburg County but do not have high-speed interstate-type
facilities connecting them with Mecklenburg County.
The corrected paragraph is as follows:
US 74 is the major east-west route connecting the Charlotte region, a major population
center and freight distribution point, to the North Carolina Coast and the port at
Wilmington (North Carolina’s largest port). In addition, US 74 is the primary
transportation connection between Union County, the fastest growing county in North
Carolina between 2000 and 2010, and Mecklenburg County/City of Charlotte, the
economic hub of the region. Although Union County is one of the fastest growing
countyies in the State, it is the only county adjacent to having a major border with
Mecklenburg County that does not have a high-speed interstate-type facility connecting
it to Mecklenburg County.
It should also be noted that the statement about Union County not having a high-speed
interstate-type facility connecting it to Mecklenburg County was included for the purpose of
showing that growth in Union County is all the more notable because it occurred without such a
facility. The statement was not an attempt to add equity among counties as another need for the
project.
SECTION 1.2.4 – ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONS
Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS present peak hour travel speeds
along US 74 based on a review on INRIX data. Some of the travel speeds presented in the tables
were incorrect due to an error in the spreadsheet calculation used to determine weighted average
speeds. The travel speeds shown on Exhibits 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS are correct. Corrected Tables 1-2 and 1-3 are provided below.
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -3 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
CORRECTED TABLE 1-2: Peak Hour Speeds Along US 74 Eastbound (2011, 2012, August
2013)
Approx.
Length
(miles)
Eastbound US 74 Segments
(from west to east)
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Weighted
Avg Speed
Limit to
Match INRIX
Segments
(mph)
2011
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
2012
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
August 2013
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
Lunch PM Lunch PM Lunch PM
8.2 I‐485 to
Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 4645 4042 4546 4042 4546 40
5.5
Fowler Secrest Road to
US 601 (Pageland Hwy)
(easternmost intersection of US 74 and
US 601 east of Monroe)
45 45 35 38 3736 3938 3837 3834
3.0 US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to
east of Presson Road 55
46 4748 4647 48 47 49 48
0.2 East of Presson Road to
Wingate City Limit 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to
Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to
Olde Country Lane 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west
of Marshville Town Limit 55
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town
Limit to Marshville Town Limit 45
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed (mph) 49 44 4243 4445 43 4546 4342
Comparison ‐ Average Travel Speeds to Speed Limits
I‐485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) ‐9 to ‐15 mph below speed limit
Fowler Secrest Road to US 601 (Pageland Hwy) ‐67 to ‐1011 mph below speed limit
US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to within Marshville +3 to 0+1 mph about/slightly above speed limit
OVERALL CORRIDOR ‐43 to ‐7 mph below speed limit
Source: INRIX, Inc.
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -4 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
The corrected travel speeds shown in the tables above do not change any of the findings of the
Draft Supplemental Final EIS. Eastbound US 74 weighted average travel speeds range from 42-
46 mph (3-7 mph below weighted average speed limit), and westbound US 74 weighted average
travel speeds range from 41-44 mph (5-8 mph below weighted average speed limit). All speeds
along the corridor are still below the desired 50 miles per hour (mph).
In addition, the travel speed information presented in Section 1.2.4 of the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS has been updated in Section 2.1 of the Final Supplemental Final EIS to include
analysis of INRIX data from all of 2013, which was not available at the time of publication of the
Draft Supplemental Final EIS. Review of the 2013 INRIX data confirms that the average peak
hour travel speeds along US 74 are below 50 mph for all segments in both directions.
CORRECTED TABLE 1-3: Peak Hour Speeds Along US 74 Westbound (2011, 2012, August
2013)
Approx.
Length
(miles)
Eastbound US 74 Segments
(from east to west)
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Weighted
Avg Speed
Limit to
Match INRIX
Segments
(mph)
2011
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
2012
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
August 2013
Peak Hour
Avg Speed
(mph)
AM PM AM PM AM PM
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
46 3746 3846 3847 3947 4048 4147
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town
Limit to Marshville Town Limit 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west
of Marshville Town Limit 55
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to
Olde Country Lane 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to
Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35
0.2 East of Presson Road to
Wingate City Limit 45
3.0 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to
east of Presson Road 55
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to
US 601 (Pageland Highway) 45 45 38 3735 3938 3938 3940 3633
8.2 I‐485 to
Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 3841 4340 4143 4440 4043 4239
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed (mph) 49 3742 3941 3944 4142 4044 4041
Comparison ‐ Average Travel Speeds to Speed Limits
Within Marshville to US 601 (Pageland Hwy) ‐5+2 to ‐90 mph belowequal to/slightly above speed limit
US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to Fowler Secrest Road ‐65 to ‐912 mph below speed limit
Fowler Secrest Road to I‐485 ‐112 to ‐176 mph below speed limit
OVERALL CORRIDOR ‐85 to ‐128 mph below speed limit
Source: INRIX, Inc.
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -5 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
SECTION 3 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 3.3.3 – AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE
US
Table 3-2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS includes a column titled “Stream Impacts
Requiring Mitigation.” As described in Note 2 at the bottom of the table, mitigation
requirements were based on the assumption that all perennial stream impacts require
mitigation as well as any impacts to intermittent streams with NCDWQ stream ratings greater
than 26. This table was originally included in the Final EIS for estimation purposes since final
decisions with respect to mitigation had not been made by the regulatory agencies at that time.
Following publication of the Final EIS, an acceptance letter was received from the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) dated June 24, 2010 (see Appendix C of this Final Supplemental
Final EIS). The letter states that the EEP will provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
stream impacts up to 23,083 linear feet. Therefore, the stream impacts requiring mitigation
presented in Table 3-2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS should have been equivalent to the
total stream impacts. This change would similarly affect all Detailed Study Alternatives (DSA).
The following is a corrected Table 3-2:
TABLE 3-2: Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Since the Draft EIS
Impacts1
Perennial
Streams
(linear ft)
Intermittent
Streams
(linear ft)
Total Streams
(linear ft)
Wetlands
(acres)
Ponds
(acres)
Stream
Impacts
Requiring
Mitigation2
Impacts Reported in Draft EIS
for DSA D 9,794 12,269 22,063 8.1 2.6 22,06312,550
Impacts for Preferred
Alternative (no service roads) 9,205 12,389 21,594 8.0 3.1 21,59411,975
Add Service Road Impacts +1,148 +341 +1,489 +0.1 +0.0 +1,489+1,260
TOTAL IMPACTS FOR
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 10,353 12,729 23,083 8.1 3.1 23,08313,235
Change from Draft EIS to
Preferred +559 +460 +1,020 0 +0.5 +1,020+685
Source: Natural Resources State Technical Report for the Monroe Connector/Bypass (ESI, December 2008) with updated y‐line and
service road information provided October 2009.
Notes: 1Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 40‐foot buffer. 2Based on assumption that all perennial stream impacts
require mitigation as well as any impacts to intermittent streams with NCDWQ stream ratings greater than 26.
SECTION 3.3.4 – COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The estimated environmental mitigation costs ($11.3 to $11.9 million) presented in Table 3-3 of
the Draft Supplemental Final EIS were incorrect. The mitigation costs were calculated based on
a 2:1 ratio for the intermittent streams, but did not include costs for mitigation of impacts to
perennial streams. The mitigation costs should also have included mitigation for perennial
streams at a 2:1 ratio. Corrected mitigation costs ($16.9 million) are provided in Table 2-1 of the
Final Supplemental Final EIS and are based on the actual environmental mitigation costs paid
for the project.
It should be noted that the cost estimates for the Preferred Alternative presented in Section 3.3.4
of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS ($898.0 million) were based on simply inflating the cost
APPENDIX D
MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
D -6 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
estimates presented in Section 2.3.4 of the Final EIS ($802.0 million) to reflect a delay in the
project opening date from December 2014 to October 2018. Following publication of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, NCDOT made adjustments to the cost estimates to reflect the design-build
price proposal as well as actual costs paid to date for the project to develop an updated
estimate of project costs. As stated in Section 2.4 of the Final Supplemental Final EIS, the
updated total project cost is $838.6 million with an 70 percent confidence level (70 percent
probability the cost will be less than or equal to this cost).
SECTION 3.4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The fourth bullet in the bulleted list of conclusions summarized from the updated quantitative
ICE analysis presented on page 3-18 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS contains an incorrect
number. The following is the corrected bullet:
 The indirect land use effects are modest, totaling about 2,300 2,100 acres of additional
development, an increase of less than 2 percent over the No-Build Scenario and an
increase in development of about 1 percent of the total land area within the study area.
The indirect land use effects were reported correctly on page 71 (Section 5.3) of the Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Quantitative Analysis Update (ICE Update) (Michael Baker Engineering,
Inc., November 2013). However, in the conclusions on page 90 (Section 5.10) and in the
Executive Summary on page ix (Section E.7), the incorrect acreage (2,300) was reported. The
conclusions from the ICE Update were repeated in part in Section 3.4 of the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS, and therefore the incorrect acreage was inadvertently reported in the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS. The error in the ICE Update was typographic in nature and resulted
from a failure to update numbers in all sections of the text during the final rounds of updating
the report. All data reported in the tables in the ICE Update is accurate and the typographic
error does not affect the conclusions regarding impacts.
APPENDIX E APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX E
TECHNICAL MEMORANDA
E-1. INRIX US 74 Corridor Travel Speeds Memo (April 2014)
E-2. Traffic Forecast Memo (May 2014)
E-3. Review of New CRTPO Socioeconomic Projections
(May 2014)
E-4. Review of the report titled, Review of Traffic Forecasting:
Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft Supplemental Final EIS,
November 2013, prepared by The Hartgen Group for the
Southern Environmental Law Center
E-5. Appold Letter (May 29, 1013)
E-6. MUMPO letter to Kym Hunter (April 16, 2013)
E-7. FHWA Conformity Determination for CRTPO 2040 MTP
(May 2, 2014)
E-8. FHWA Memos
This page was intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX E APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX E-1
INRIX US 74 Corridor Travel Speeds Memo (April 2014)
This page was intentionally left blank.
E1-1
segment within the Marshville town limit. Table 2 shows that the entire westbound corridor operates
significantly below the posted speed. Figures 1-6 display the average operating speeds for US 74
eastbound and westbound for AM, lunch and PM peak hours in 2013. Tables 3-5 show INRIX
average speed data along the US 74 eastbound and westbound corridor per segment and 24-hour
period for 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Conclusions
The INRIX data demonstrate that localized spot improvements along the US 74 corridor over the last
few years have not improved the overall corridor travel speeds. In fact, the average corridor travel
speeds have remained relatively constant from 2011 to 2012 to 2013, within +/- 1 to 2 mph. The US
74 facility still experiences congestion during peak periods of the day, and the corridor does not
currently operate as a high-speed facility (average speed of 50 mph or greater).
Based on the review of INRIX data, at no time during the day are US 74 average corridor speeds
equal to or exceeding 50 mph. US 74 corridor average hourly travel speeds, during peak and off-peak
conditions throughout a 24-hour period over a three-year period from January 1st, 2011 to
December 31st, 2013, are limited to less than 50 mph. This data includes off-peak periods, free-flow
conditions with very little to no congestion, and recent US 74 improvements along the corridor.
E1-2
Table 1. US 74 Eastbound Peak Period Speeds
Apprx.
Segment
Length
(miles)
Eastbound US 74 Segment
from West to East
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Wtd.
Speed
Limit to
match
INRIX
(mph)
2011 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2012 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2013 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM
8.2 I-485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 45 45 42 48 46 42 47 46 41
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to US 601
(Pageland Highway) 45 45 39 35 38 41 36 38 40 37 35
3 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to east of
Presson Road 55
46 48 48 47 48 48 47 49 48 47
0.2 East of Presson Road to Wingate City
Limit 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to Old Highway 74
(SR 1740) 35
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to Olde
Country Lane 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west of
Marshville Town Limit 55
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town Limit
to Marshville Town Limit 45
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed 49 49 45 44 43 47 45 43 46 45 42
E1-3
Table 2. US 74 Westbound Peak Period Speeds
Apprx.
Segment
Length
(miles)
Westbound US 74 Segment
from East to West
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Wtd.
Speed
Limit to
match
INRIX
(mph)
2011 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2012 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2013 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town Limit to
Marshville Town Limit 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west of Marshville
Town Limit 55
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to Olde Country Lane 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35
0.2 East of Presson Road to Wingate City Limit 45
3 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to east of Presson
Road 55
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to US 601 (Pageland
Highway) 45 45 38 35 35 38 35 38 39 36 35
8.2 I-485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 41 43 40 43 45 40 41 44 39
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed 49 49 42 43 41 44 44 42 43 44 41
E1-4
Figure 1. US 74 Eastbound 2013 AM Peak Period Speeds
E1-5
Figure 2. US 74 Eastbound 2013 Lunch Peak Period Speeds
E1-6
Figure 3. US 74 Eastbound 2013 PM Peak Period Speeds
E1-7
Figure 4. US 74 Westbound 2013 AM Peak Period Speeds
E1-8
Figure 5. US 74 Westbound 2013 Lunch Peak Period Speeds
E1-9
Figure 6. US 74 Westbound 2013 PM Peak Period Speeds
E1-10
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125+07488 NC-205/Elm St 8.54 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 49
125P05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.02 36 37 36 37 38 36 33 33 32 30 29 29 28 27 27 33 35 36 35 33 32 32 35 36
125+05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.12 35 35 35 36 37 34 32 32 32 29 28 27 26 26 26 32 34 35 34 32 32 31 33 34
125+07487 E Franklin St 1.21 40 40 41 41 41 39 38 38 38 38 38 37 36 36 36 38 40 40 40 40 37 36 39 40
125+07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.11 42 42 42 43 43 42 40 38 38 40 41 40 38 38 39 38 39 38 37 38 37 38 41 41
125P05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.35 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 49 49 49 49
125+05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.58 43 44 44 44 44 43 41 38 36 35 34 32 29 28 30 33 34 33 34 35 37 37 41 42
125+05820 Roland Dr 6.86 49 49 49 49 49 48 46 43 43 47 48 46 45 45 45 46 46 45 45 45 45 45 47 48
125+05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 1.27 51 52 52 52 52 51 48 46 45 47 46 46 45 44 44 40 38 36 36 42 46 46 49 50
125+05818 Stallings Rd 0.75 52 52 52 52 53 51 48 46 44 41 40 39 38 37 36 32 28 20 28 39 46 48 51 52
125P05817 I-485 0.76 56 56 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 57 57 57 56 56 56 56 55 52 54 54 55 54 56 56
125+05817 I-485 0.44 47 48 48 48 49 47 47 48 46 46 47 47 46 45 45 46 46 44 45 44 44 45 47 48
125+05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.26 45 46 45 45 46 44 43 42 41 41 42 41 39 39 38 38 37 34 38 38 40 41 44 45
49 49 49 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 49
50 50 50 50 50 49 47 45 44 47 48 46 45 45 45 45 44 42 43 45 46 46 48 49
42 43 43 43 43 42 40 39 38 38 38 37 35 34 35 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 41 42
48 48 48 48 48 47 46 45 45 46 46 45 44 44 44 44 44 43 44 44 45 45 47 48
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125-05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.43 44 44 46 44 46 44 39 24 24 31 34 32 29 31 32 32 32 31 33 36 38 39 44 44
125N05817 I-485 0.91 55 55 55 55 55 55 54 44 44 54 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54 54 53 53 53 55 55
125-05817 I-485 0.61 50 50 50 50 50 51 49 44 45 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 46 48 47 47 47 49 49
125-05818 Stallings Rd 1.26 48 48 48 49 49 48 44 32 40 45 46 46 45 45 45 44 43 38 42 44 45 45 47 48
125-05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 6.86 49 49 49 49 49 49 45 43 44 45 45 44 42 43 42 41 40 39 41 44 44 45 47 48
125-05820 Roland Dr 1.66 44 44 44 44 44 44 42 37 36 39 40 38 36 36 37 35 35 34 35 38 38 38 42 44
125N05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.30 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 48 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 48 48
125-05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.07 42 42 42 42 42 43 42 41 40 40 40 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 40 41 39 38 41 42
125-07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.22 39 39 40 40 40 39 37 36 36 34 33 32 30 32 31 31 32 32 35 38 36 37 38 39
125-07487 E Franklin St 0.11 28 28 28 28 31 29 27 28 26 22 21 20 20 20 20 21 21 22 24 25 25 25 27 27
125N05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.01 28 27 27 27 31 28 26 27 24 24 23 23 22 22 23 23 24 24 26 26 25 25 26 26
125-05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 8.55 47 47 47 47 48 47 46 46 45 46 47 46 46 47 46 46 46 46 46 47 46 46 47 47
47 47 47 47 48 47 46 46 45 46 47 46 46 47 46 46 46 46 46 47 46 46 47 47
42 42 42 42 42 42 41 38 38 38 38 37 35 36 36 35 36 35 37 39 38 38 41 42
49 49 49 49 49 49 46 41 43 45 46 45 43 44 44 43 42 40 42 45 45 46 48 49
47 47 47 47 48 47 45 42 43 44 45 44 43 44 43 43 42 41 43 44 44 44 46 47
Westbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Average US 74 WB Corridor Speed (mph)
Avg speed Fowler Secrest to US-601
Avg speed I-485 to Fowler Secrest
Avg speed US-601 to NC 205
Avg speed Roland to Matthews Mint Hill
Avg speed US-601 to Roland Dr
Avg speed Marshville to US-601 intersection
Average Speed for US 74 from NC 205 (Elm St.) to I-485
Table 3 - US 74 Corridor INRIX Average Speed Data
2011, Tuesday - Thursday
Average Speed for US 74 from I-485 to NC 205 (Elm St.)
Eastbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Average US 74 EB Corridor Speed (mph)
E1-11
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125+07488 NC-205/Elm St 8.54 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 49 49 49 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49
125P05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.02 39 39 39 39 39 37 35 33 32 32 30 29 28 28 28 34 36 36 35 35 33 34 38 38
125+05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.12 37 37 37 37 37 35 34 32 33 30 29 28 27 26 26 33 36 35 34 34 33 32 35 35
125+07487 E Franklin St 1.21 41 41 41 42 42 41 42 39 38 39 39 38 37 36 37 39 41 40 40 41 39 37 40 40
125+07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.11 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 41 40 42 43 42 40 39 40 38 38 37 37 38 38 39 41 41
125P05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.35 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 52 51 51 51 50 51 51 51 50 50 49 49 49 50 50
125+05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.58 44 45 45 45 45 43 42 42 40 36 35 33 30 30 32 35 36 35 36 38 39 38 42 43
125+05820 Roland Dr 6.86 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 47 47 49 49 48 46 46 46 47 47 46 46 46 46 46 48 48
125+05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 1.27 52 52 52 52 52 52 50 49 48 48 47 46 45 44 44 40 36 33 36 41 47 47 50 51
125+05818 Stallings Rd 0.75 53 53 53 53 53 52 49 47 46 40 38 38 37 35 35 30 25 18 24 35 46 48 51 52
125P05817 I-485 0.76 56 56 56 56 57 56 57 58 58 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 54 50 54 54 55 55 56 56
125+05817 I-485 0.44 50 50 50 50 50 48 48 48 47 47 47 46 46 46 45 47 46 44 46 45 46 46 49 49
125+05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.26 48 48 48 48 48 46 44 43 42 40 39 38 37 36 35 38 36 31 37 39 41 42 47 47
49 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 49 49 49 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49
50 50 50 50 50 50 49 48 48 49 48 47 46 46 45 45 44 42 44 45 47 47 49 49
43 44 44 44 44 43 43 41 40 39 39 38 36 35 37 38 39 38 38 40 39 39 42 42
48 48 48 49 49 48 48 47 46 47 47 46 45 45 45 45 44 43 44 45 46 46 48 48
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125-05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.43 48 48 50 48 48 47 42 25 27 33 36 34 30 32 33 32 32 31 33 38 41 41 47 48
125N05817 I-485 0.91 55 55 56 55 55 56 56 47 49 56 57 56 56 56 56 56 56 55 55 54 54 54 55 55
125-05817 I-485 0.61 51 51 51 51 52 52 50 47 49 50 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 47 48 47 48 48 50 51
125-05818 Stallings Rd 1.26 49 50 50 50 51 51 45 36 40 47 49 48 47 47 46 45 44 38 41 44 46 46 48 49
125-05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 6.86 49 49 49 49 49 49 47 45 45 46 47 45 43 42 42 41 41 39 41 44 44 45 47 48
125-05820 Roland Dr 1.66 45 45 45 45 45 45 43 36 34 39 40 38 36 36 37 38 39 38 37 38 38 39 43 44
125N05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.30 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 49 49
125-05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.07 42 43 43 43 44 45 45 42 41 40 39 39 38 38 38 40 41 41 41 42 41 39 42 42
125-07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.22 40 40 41 41 41 42 40 37 36 33 32 30 29 30 29 32 33 33 37 39 38 36 39 39
125-07487 E Franklin St 0.11 32 31 32 32 32 31 29 29 26 23 23 21 21 20 21 22 23 23 25 27 27 26 30 31
125N05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.01 33 33 33 34 33 30 28 28 25 24 24 23 23 22 23 25 25 26 28 29 29 28 32 33
125-05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 8.55 47 47 47 48 48 48 47 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
47 47 47 48 48 48 47 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
43 43 43 43 44 44 43 38 37 38 38 36 35 35 35 37 38 38 39 40 39 38 42 42
50 50 50 50 50 50 48 43 44 47 48 46 45 44 44 43 43 40 42 45 45 46 48 49
47 47 48 48 48 48 46 44 44 45 46 45 44 43 43 43 43 42 43 45 45 45 46 47
Table 4 - US 74 Corridor INRIX Average Speed Data
Average US 74 WB Corridor Speed (mph)
Avg speed Roland to Matthews Mint Hill
2012, Tuesday - Thursday
Average Speed for US 74 from I-485 to NC 205 (Elm St.)
Eastbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Avg speed US-601 to NC 205
Avg speed I-485 to Fowler Secrest
Avg speed Fowler Secrest to US-601
Average US 74 EB Corridor Speed (mph)
Average Speed for US 74 from NC 205 (Elm St.) to I-485
Westbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Avg speed Marshville to US-601 intersection
Avg speed US-601 to Roland Dr
E1-12
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125+07488 NC-205/Elm St 8.54 49 49 49 49 50 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 48 48 47 48 47 48 48 48 48 49 49
125P05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.02 41 41 41 41 41 39 38 36 36 34 35 34 33 33 33 36 36 36 37 36 37 36 39 40
125+05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.12 39 39 39 40 39 38 37 35 35 32 31 30 30 29 29 33 34 34 35 35 35 34 36 37
125+07487 E Franklin St 1.21 42 43 42 43 43 43 42 39 38 40 40 40 39 39 39 37 38 37 40 43 41 38 41 41
125+07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.11 43 44 44 44 45 45 44 41 40 42 42 41 39 40 40 35 34 34 37 39 40 39 42 43
125P05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.35 51 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 49 50 50 49 49 50 49 50 49 50 50
125+05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.58 43 43 44 44 44 43 41 39 37 36 36 34 32 31 32 30 30 30 32 37 38 36 40 41
125+05820 Roland Dr 6.86 49 50 50 50 50 50 48 46 47 48 48 47 46 45 46 46 45 44 46 45 46 46 48 48
125+05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 1.27 52 52 52 53 52 52 48 48 48 48 47 46 45 44 43 40 35 33 35 39 46 46 50 51
125+05818 Stallings Rd 0.75 52 52 52 53 52 52 48 45 46 40 37 37 35 34 33 29 23 19 23 32 45 47 50 51
125P05817 I-485 0.76 56 56 56 56 57 56 57 56 57 57 57 57 56 56 56 56 53 50 53 53 55 55 56 56
125+05817 I-485 0.44 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 46 46 46 47 46 44 46 45 46 46 48 49
125+05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.26 47 47 47 46 46 44 43 40 41 39 40 39 36 36 35 35 34 30 36 37 39 41 45 46
49 49 49 49 50 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 48 48 47 48 47 48 48 48 48 49 49
50 51 51 51 51 51 49 47 48 48 48 47 46 45 45 45 43 41 43 44 46 47 49 49
43 44 44 44 44 44 43 40 39 40 40 39 37 37 37 35 35 35 37 40 40 38 41 42
48 49 49 49 49 49 48 46 46 47 47 46 45 44 45 44 43 42 44 45 46 46 48 48
TMC CODE SEGMENT NAME
LENGTH
(MILES)
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
125-05816 Matthews Mint Hill Rd 0.43 47 47 47 48 48 46 41 25 25 32 36 34 29 31 32 32 32 30 31 37 40 41 46 47
125N05817 I-485 0.91 56 55 55 56 56 56 54 42 42 55 56 56 55 55 56 55 55 54 54 54 54 54 55 56
125-05817 I-485 0.61 52 52 52 53 53 53 49 47 48 50 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 47 47 47 49 48 51 51
125-05818 Stallings Rd 1.26 50 50 51 52 52 51 43 33 38 47 49 48 47 47 47 45 43 36 38 44 46 46 49 50
125-05819 Indian Trail Fairview Rd 6.86 48 49 49 49 49 49 46 43 45 46 46 45 42 42 41 40 40 37 40 44 45 44 47 48
125-05820 Roland Dr 1.66 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 37 35 38 39 37 36 36 36 33 34 33 34 37 37 38 42 43
125N05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 0.30 49 49 49 49 50 50 51 50 49 49 49 49 48 49 49 49 49 48 49 49 49 48 49 49
125-05821 US-601/NC-200/Concord Hwy/Skyway Dr 1.07 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 43 42 40 40 39 38 38 38 38 38 38 41 42 41 40 42 43
125-07486 NC-200/Morgan Mill Rd 1.22 40 41 41 41 41 42 41 37 35 34 34 34 33 33 33 34 34 34 36 38 37 37 39 40
125-07487 E Franklin St 0.11 36 36 37 36 37 36 34 30 28 29 29 28 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 31 31 31 35 36
125N05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 0.01 36 36 37 36 37 36 33 30 29 31 31 30 29 29 29 30 31 31 31 33 33 32 35 36
125-05822 US-601/Pageland Hwy 8.55 48 48 48 48 49 48 48 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 47 47 48 48
48 48 48 48 49 48 48 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 47 47 48 48
43 43 44 44 44 44 44 39 38 38 38 37 36 36 36 35 36 35 37 39 39 39 41 42
49 50 50 50 50 50 46 41 43 47 47 46 44 44 43 42 42 39 41 45 46 45 48 49
48 48 48 48 49 48 47 43 43 45 45 45 44 44 43 43 43 41 43 45 45 45 47 47
Table 5 - US 74 Corridor INRIX Average Speed Data
Avg speed Roland to Matthews Mint Hill
Average US 74 WB Corridor Speed (mph)
Avg speed US-601 to Roland Dr
2013, Tuesday - Thursday
Average Speed for US 74 from I-485 to NC 205 (Elm St.)
Eastbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Avg speed US-601 to NC 205
Avg speed I-485 to Fowler Secrest
Avg speed Fowler Secrest to US-601
Average US 74 EB Corridor Speed (mph)
Average Speed for US 74 from NC 205 (Elm St.) to I-485
Westbound US 74 Corridor Average Speed
Avg speed Marshville to US-601 intersection
E1-13
This page was intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX E APPENDICES
May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
APPENDIX E-2
Traffic Forecast Memo (May 2014)
This page was intentionally left blank.
E2-1
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 2
Table 1 – Summary of Monroe Connector/Bypass Project Traffic Forecasts
Document Name
Prepared By,
Date
Forecast
Years
Forecast
Scenarios
Model Version and SE Data
Used in
NEPA
Documents
Traffic Forecasts
A
Traffic Forecast for the No-
Build Alternatives for
NCDOT State TIP Project
No. R-3329 and NCDOT
State TIP Project No. R-
2559, Monroe
Connector/Bypass Study
Martin/Alexiou/Bryson
(MAB), June 2008
2007,
2030
2007 &
2030
No-Build
MRM05 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934)
Yes
B
Technical Memorandum for
TIP Projects
R-2559 & R-3329 US74
Upgrade Scenario
Wilbur Smith
Associates (WSA),
June 2008
2035
2035
Upgrade
Existing
Build Non-
Toll & Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934)
Yes
C
Traffic Forecast for TIP
Projects
R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe
Connector/Bypass
WSA, September
2008
2008,
2035
2008 &
2035
No-Build,
Build
Non-Toll &
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934)
Yes
Traffic Forecast Interpolations, Extrapolations and Redistributions
D
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Alternative 3A
2013 AADT Build Toll
Scenario
HNTB, January 2009 2013
2013
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934).
No
E
2035 Build Toll Forecast,
Segment 2 (Alternative 3A)
HNTB, July 2009 2035
2035
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934).
Yes
F
NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised
Monroe Connector Bypass
No-Build Traffic Forecast
Memorandum
HNTB, March 2010
2008,
2035
2008 &
2035
No-Build
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934).
Yes
G
Monroe Connector /
Bypass Year 2025 Build
Toll Alternative 3A Traffic
Volume Projections
HNTB, August 2010 2025
2025
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934).
No
Traffic & Revenue Studies
H
Monroe Connector/Bypass
2009 Update to Preliminary
Study
WSA, April 2009
2014
thru
2054
2014 thru
2054
Build Toll
Modified MRM06 and modified 2008
Interim SE data
(SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim)
No
I
Proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass
Comprehensive Traffic and
Revenue Study, Final
Report
WSA, October 2010
2015
thru
2055
2015 thru
2055
Build Toll
Modified MRM06 and modified 2008
Interim SE data
(SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim)
No
For reference, Table 2 and Table 3 provide an estimated daily traffic volume comparison, by
segment, of the No-Build and Build traffic forecasts, respectively, prepared during the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project development process.
E2-2
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 3
1.1 Traffic Forecasts
Project-Level traffic forecasts were developed for No-Build, Improve Existing, and Build
scenarios. These forecasts are based on data including, but not limited to, traffic counts,
historic travel trends, the MUMPO Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the MRM, and
existing road network operations. It is important to note that the forecasts are not based
solely on any single data source but are based on the review, comparison, and synthesis of
different sources of data. These individual data sources are not intended to be traffic
forecasts and do not include the level of detail ultimately developed in the traffic forecast.
For example, the MRM does not include all the roadways within the study area. Therefore,
those roadways are included in the traffic forecast through analyzing traffic counts or other
available data sources. Another example of source data are Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) volumes, which are developed by annualizing traffic counts collected at one point in
time. The following list describes the uses of each traffic forecast developed in the project
development process:
A. Traffic Forecast for the No-Build Alternatives for NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-3329
and NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-2559, Monroe Connector/Bypass Study
This forecast is used in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as follows:
 Existing and Year 2030 No-Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum,
completed in March 2008
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS
This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Final EIS
Ultimately this document was updated by the NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R-2559
Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum (Table 1,
F).
B. Technical Memorandum for TIP Projects R-2559 & R-3329 US 74 Upgrade Scenario
This forecast is used in the Draft EIS as follows:
 STIP Projects R-3329/R-2559 Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternatives Study,
completed in March 2009
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS
C. Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass
This forecast is used in the Draft EIS as follows:
 Final Air Quality Technical Memorandum for the Monroe Connector Bypass
completed in February 2009
 Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum completed in March 2009
 Year 2035 Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum completed in
February 2009
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS
E2-3
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 4
This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Final EIS
The No-Build forecast was ultimately updated in the document NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast
Memorandum (Table 1, F). Additional discussion is included in Attachment A (Monroe
Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Summary Memorandum).
1.2 Traffic Forecast Interpolations, Extrapolations or Redistributions
Traffic forecast interpolations, extrapolations, or redistributions of the original traffic forecasts
were developed to state, analyze, or confirm traffic forecast volumes for conditions or years
not included in the initial traffic forecasts. This approach uses the original accepted
forecasts and base data assumptions to mathematically calculate traffic estimates and
redistributions of traffic for conditions not included or known at the time of the initial forecast.
This methodology is appropriate because the differences being considered do not change
the original forecast, assumptions, methodology or base data. The interpolation and
extrapolation process is a method for developing new data points for years not considered in
the base forecast but within the range of volumes established by the base forecast. The
redistribution process was used to evaluate a minor change in the frontage road
configuration at the western terminus of the project. Examples of these differences include
different interchange forms and service road connection points. The geometric differences
analyzed were minor to the point of not changing the base forecast assumptions or data.
The following list describes each traffic forecast’s uses and the interpolations,
extrapolations, or redistributions necessary for that forecast:
D. Monroe Connector/Bypass Alternative 3A 2013 AADT Build Toll Scenario
This 2013 Build Forecast was developed to represent the opening year traffic volumes
for inclusion on the April 2009 Monroe Connector/Bypass public hearing maps. This
forecast was developed through interpolation of the 2008 and 2035 Build forecasts from
the Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table
1, C).
E. 2035 Build Toll Forecast, Segment 2 (Alternative 3A)
This 2035 Build forecast redistributed forecasted volumes from the Traffic Forecast for
TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C) to account for a
minor change in the frontage road configuration at the western terminus of the project.
This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Final Addendum to Year 2035 Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum
completed in November 2009
 Addendum Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum completed in February
2010
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
Final EIS
E2-4
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 5
F. NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build
Traffic Forecast Memorandum
This forecast was used to confirm the Draft EIS analysis of existing and design year no-build
conditions and is referenced in the Final EIS Errata. The updated 2008 and 2035
No-Build forecasts were prepared due to No-Build forecast discrepancies in the Traffic
Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C).
Additional discussion is included in Attachment A (Monroe Bypass No-Build Traffic
Forecast Summary Memorandum).
G. Monroe Connector / Bypass Year 2025 Build Toll Alternative 3A Traffic Volume
Projections
This forecast was provided to the Design-Build teams during construction procurement.
The Design-Build teams were given an option of designing the project to the 2035 traffic
forecast volumes and phase constructing the project based on the 2025 year traffic
forecast volumes. Ultimately, the Design-Build teams did not choose the option of phase
constructing using the 2025 year traffic forecast volumes.
1.3 Traffic and Revenue Studies
A Traffic and Revenue Study is a revenue forecast. The purpose of a Traffic and Revenue
Study is to analyze the potential project revenue associated with the proposed toll road.
Therefore, these studies are developed as part of the project financing efforts and are
developed differently than a project level traffic forecast. Two of the major differences in a
Traffic and Revenue Study are the socioeconomic data used and the travel demand model
used. The project level forecasts are based on the socioeconomic data and the travel
demand model as developed and approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) and other data as described in Section 1.1. The Traffic and Revenue Study uses
socioeconomic data developed by an independent economist. The Traffic and Revenue
Study modifies the travel demand model including the traffic analysis zone structure, link
properties, link connections, and value of time assumptions. The following list describes the
uses of the Traffic and Revenue Studies developed during the project development process:
H. Monroe Connector/Bypass 2009 Update to Preliminary Study
This preliminary traffic and revenue forecast is an update to the Monroe Connector
Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study issued in October 2006. These traffic and
revenue forecasts were developed to support the project financing efforts. The Monroe
Connector/Bypass 2009 Update to Preliminary Study (Table 1, H) is referenced in the
Final EIS.
I. Proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study, Final
Report
This final traffic and revenue forecast was developed to support the project financing
efforts and was not used in any analysis to support the project level traffic forecast.
(Note: A Draft Final Report was issued in August 2010). Table 4 list Monroe/Connector
Bypass estimated 2015, 2020 and 2030 weekday traffic volumes.
E2-5
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 6
2. Are the current No-Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
The current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecast from the document NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum
(Table 1, F) was used to confirm the analysis of 2007 existing and 2030 design year no-build
conditions used in the Draft EIS. The analysis was confirmed by quantitatively
demonstrating 2035 forecast volumes were higher than 2030 No-Build volumes and
qualitatively concluding US 74 operations would worsen with higher 2035 No-Build forecast
volumes.
To determine if the current No-Build traffic forecast is still valid, it is necessary to reasonably
determine if an updated No-Build forecast is expected to have lower, equal or higher
forecast volumes. If forecast volumes are expected to be equal to or higher than the current
No-Build forecast used in the 2007 existing and 2030 design year analysis, then it is
reasonable to conclude an updated No-Build forecast would not change the conclusions in
the Draft EIS. The following information was used to validate the 2007/2030 No-Build traffic
forecasts:
 2012 NCDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes,
 Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM11v1.1,
 Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM14v1.0 output data provided by
CRTPO,
 2009 socioeconomic (SE) data,
 Existing US 74 corridor travel time runs,
 Current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecasts.
Based on a meeting with NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) on March 21, 2013
and the document Guidelines to Determine When to Request an Updated Traffic Forecast1
(NCDOT TPB, February 24, 2009), the current No-Build traffic forecasts meet the guidelines
that indicate the existing forecast is valid and an updated forecast is not warranted. All of
these guidelines are met since no new alternatives have been identified, the current let date
of the project is less than the Future Forecast Year plus 20 years, the study area is not
experiencing growth not previously considered in the forecast, and the traffic forecast is not
five years older than the Base Year.
2.1 2012 NCDOT AADT Volumes
Existing traffic volumes are a primary factor in determining base year forecast volumes,
such as were used for the 2007 No-Build forecast. For this reason, 2007 and 2012
NCDOT AADT’s were compared along the US 74 corridor to determine if an updated
base year traffic forecast would be expected to have higher volumes than the current
2007 No-Build forecasts. Over the five year period from 2007 to 2012, average volumes
along the US 74 corridor cumulatively grew approximately zero percent, based on
available AADT data. Based on historical AADT growth trends, it is reasonable to
conclude that an updated base year forecast (i.e. 2013) would generally be equal to the
2007 No-Build Forecast. 2007 and 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes are listed in Table 5.
It is appropriate to compare cumulative corridor changes in terms of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and individual segment volume and percent changes. Individual
segment traffic volumes include higher degrees of variability inherent in specific traffic
1 https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/ProjectLevelTrafficForecasting.aspx
E2-6
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 7
data base on the placement of traffic counting equipment, daily, monthly and seasonal
variations in data collection, weather and other factors. Corridor VMT considers the
entire corridor, volumes and distance of each corridor segment and calculates VMT
based on multiplying daily segment volumes times segment length. For the purposes of
this memo, comparing overall corridor VMT and percent changes is more appropriate in
identifying general trends in traffic patterns. Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74
segment distances used to calculate VMT for all tables are shown on Table 7.
2.2 Comparison of 2030 No-Build MRM05v1.0 to 2035 No-Build MRM11v1.1 Model Data
The Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, referred to as the MRM, is the primary
tool for evaluating existing and future travel in the Metrolina Region at the planning level.
For project-level traffic forecasting, the MRM is just one tool and associated raw model
outputs are just one piece of data used in the forecasting process. The MRM is
continually updated through the Metrolina Region planning process. The initial No-Build
traffic forecast (Table 1, A) was prepared using MRM05v1.0. Since then three model
versions have been developed, in order of release date: MRM06, MRM08 and MRM11.
MRM11v1.1 was used for the purpose of evaluating the traffic forecasting process used
to develop the initial No-Build traffic forecast (Table 1, A). This model version includes
all the projects as shown in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. A 2035 No-Build
MRM11v1.1 model was developed by removing the Monroe Connector/Bypass links.
The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment for the 2030 No-Build forecast
(Table 1, A), based on the MRM05v1.0 and 2005 SE data, was compared to 2035 No-
Build raw model daily volume assignment from the MRM11v1.1. The 2009 SE data was
used to evaluate how changes in raw model output data may affect an updated future
year No-Build traffic forecast. Raw model output is an important factor in developing
traffic forecasts by, but not limited to, determining growth rates from base year to future
year scenarios, traffic volume orders of magnitude, volume trends along facilities and
future year volumes for new location facilities. Based on a comparison of cumulative
2030 to 2035 No-Build raw model daily volumes along the US 74 corridor, the 2035 No-
Build increases 17 percent over the five year period, corresponding to a three percent
annual growth rate. Raw model daily assignment volumes range from 23,000 to 70,300
and 21,200 to 101,600 for 2030 MRM05v1.0 with 2005 SE data to 2035 MRM11v1.1
with 2009 SE data, respectively. Based on this comparison, an updated future year No-
Build forecast (i.e. 2035) would reasonably be expected to have volumes equal to or
greater than the 2030 No-Build forecast. Thus, an updated No-Build traffic forecast
would not change the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Table 5 lists raw model daily volume
assignment and VMT percent change for both scenarios.
2.3 Comparison of No-Build Scenario Model Data from 2030 MRM06v1.1 to 2030 and
2040 MRM14v1.0
As previously stated, MRM14v1.0 output was provided by CRTPO (formerly MUMPO),
which is compared and summarized in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
The raw model daily volume assignment data from a run of 2030 MRM05v1.0 was
compared to a model run using the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 SE data). It
is important to note that the No-Build model scenarios do not include the Monroe
Connector/Bypass.
Along the existing US 74 corridor, there is some variability between the 2030
MRM05v1.0 and the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 model results, with a general trend of
E2-7
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 8
higher daily assignment in MRM14v1.0 along the western portion of US 74 and lower
daily assignment along the eastern portion. When comparing the 2030 MRM05v1.0 and
the 2030 MRM14v1.0 model results, the cumulative VMT changes equate to a 4 percent
decrease along the US 74 corridor with 8 of the 31 total segments having higher
volumes. When comparing the 2030 MRM05v1.0 and the 2040 MRM14v1.0 model
results, the cumulative VMT changes equate to a 3 percent increase along the US 74
corridor with 20 of the 31 total segments having higher volumes. Overall corridor VMT
results indicate that both the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 model results show substantial
growth when compared with the existing NCDOT AADT traffic volumes along US 74.
Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM14v1.0) and SE data (2013), the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still generally
attracting similar levels of demand as MRM05v1.0 and 2005 SE data used in the 2030
No-Build forecast. It is reasonable to conclude that the 2040 MRM14v1.0 assigns
similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the US 74
compared to MRM05v1.0. Thus, an updated No-Build traffic forecast would not change
the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Table 5 lists raw model daily volume assignment and
VMT percent change for each scenario.
2.4 Comparison of 2030 and 2040 No-Build Scenario Model Data from MRM14v1.0
No-Build Scenario model data was compared between 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0
model runs. These results are shown in Table 5. The data between the two model runs
is based on 2013 SE data and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2040 segment
daily traffic assignments exceed the 2030 MRM14v1.0 results. On the existing US 74
facility, volumes increase from approximately 1 percent to 10 percent between the 2030
and 2040 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 7 percent increase
along the US 74 corridor.
The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase on the US 74 corridor between the 2030 and 2040 time periods.
Thus, 2040 No-Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected to
demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along US 74, further substantiating the viability
of and need for the project.
2.5 US 74 Corridor Travel Time Runs
The US 74 corridor from I-485 to Elm Street in Marshville is approximately 22.5 miles in
length and includes 30 signalized intersections, multiple unsignalized intersections, and
multiple driveway access points. 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes range from 23,000 to
57,000 and are projected to increase to a new range from 31,600 to 89,100 based on
2035 No-Build forecast volumes (Table 1, F). This means that 2012 NCDOT AADT
volumes would increase in the range of 9,800 to 33,300 vehicles per day (vpd) (or
between 20 percent to 81 percent) along the US 74 corridor. See Table 6 for the
comparison of 2012 NCDOT AADT and 2035 No-Build forecast volumes. This growth in
US 74 traffic volumes will negatively impact corridor operations by increasing
congestion, reducing travel speeds, and increasing travel times. 2013 existing travel
time runs were collected in March 2013 along the US 74 corridor. Per the US 74
Corridor Travel Time Comparison memorandum (HNTB, October 24, 2013), “US 74
average corridor travel speeds are limited to less than 50 mph, even during off-peak
periods and free-flow conditions with very little to no congestion”. These travel time runs
reflect existing conditions and account for all US 74 highway improvements implemented
E2-8
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 9
between 2007 and the present. The 2013 travel time runs verify that US 74 does not
operate as a high speed facility.
Based on 2012 NCDOT AADT’s, MRM11v1.1 (with 2009 socioeconomic data), and
MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 socioeconomic data), an updated base year and future year forecast
would reasonably be expected to have equal to or higher forecast volumes than the current
no-build forecasts used in the analysis of existing and design year no-build conditions. In
addition, 2013 existing travel time runs along the US 74 corridor verify US 74 does not
operate as a high speed facility. Comparison of 2035 No-Build traffic volume increases to
2012 AADT’s also realistically demonstrate that additional future congestion will continue to
decrease operating speeds along the US 74 corridor, further impairing the ability to provide
high speed mobility. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that updated No-Build forecasts
would not change the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Based on this assessment of all
available information, the current No-Build traffic forecasts are still valid for the purpose they
were used.
3. Are the current Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
The Build forecast used in the project level forecasted traffic is titled Traffic Forecast for TIP
Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C) and contained 2008 and
2035 Build Scenario data. This forecast utilized the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand
Model, MRM06v1.1, and 2005 socioeconomic (SE) data. The validity of the 2035 Build
forecasts were assessed by comparing the 2030 MRM06v1.1 raw model daily volume
assignment with 2030 and 2035 Build raw model daily volume assignments utilizing
MRM11v1.1 and 2009 SE data and 2035 and 2040 Build raw model daily volume
assignments utilizing MRM14v1.0 and 2013 SE data.
The regional model, such as the Metrolina Regional Model, is used as a tool in the
development of traffic forecasts and raw model daily volumes are just one of the many
pieces of data used to develop traffic forecast volumes. It is important to note that a travel
demand model (TDM) is not an exact measure of existing or future traffic volumes but is a
tool to generally measure impacts of growth and development and help forecast travel
characteristics at the planning-level. The TDM employs a mathematical approach to
understanding how changes in land use, population, and area employment will impact the
transportation system. The Metrolina Regional Model encompasses multiple counties in two
states and was developed and calibrated as a tool to evaluate existing and future travel
demands on a regional basis. Raw model volumes for specific roadway links can be
extracted from the regional model but inherently have levels of variability compared to
existing and traffic forecast volumes. The accuracy of raw model volumes to existing and
future conditions is based on a variety of factors: existing and future roadway network
detail, calibration parameters, accuracy of future land use, population, area employment
estimates, and other factors. Therefore, it is not appropriate to directly compare raw model
daily volumes to balanced traffic forecast volumes. General comparisons of raw model daily
volumes from the Build Scenario models can be used as validation of the results from
previous Build Scenario forecasts, since those forecasts use model results as one of the
factors in developing the forecast.
Based on a meeting with NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) on March 21, 2013
and the document Guidelines to Determine When to Request an Updated Traffic Forecast
2 (NCDOT TPB, February 24, 2009), the current Build traffic forecasts meet the guidelines
E2-9
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 10
that indicate the existing forecast is valid and an updated forecast is not warranted. All of
these guidelines are met since no new alternatives have been identified, the current let date
of the project is less than the Future Forecast Year plus 20 years, the study area is not
experiencing growth not previously considered in the forecast, and the traffic forecast is not
five years older than the Base Year.
The following three comparisons can be made to address the current validity of the previous
Build Scenario traffic forecast results. Comparative results are shown in Table 7.
3.1 Comparison of 2030 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM06v1.1 to MRM11v1.1
Since the 2035 WSA Build Scenario forecast (Table 1, C) was developed with the use of
the (then current) 2030 MRM06v1.1 (with 2005 SE data), the raw model daily volume
assignment data from a run of MRM06v1.1 was compared to a model run using the
MRM11v1.1 (with 2009 SE data). It is important to note that both model scenarios
included the Monroe Connector/Bypass. For the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, MRM11v1.1 assigns higher traffic (8 percent to 30 percent) to
the western portion of the Bypass than MRM06v1.1. Conversely, MRM11v1.1 has lower
projected daily assignments (9 percent to 27 percent decreases from MRM06v1.1) in the
central and eastern portions of the project. Along the existing US 74 corridor, there is
some variability between the two model results, with a general trend of higher daily
assignment in MRM11v1.1 (29 of 31 segments have higher volumes). In many cases, -
Y- Line model volumes (the route intersecting the Monroe Connector/Bypass) are lower
in MRM11v1.1 than MRM06v1.1. However, direct comparisons of individual -Y- Line
volumes directly north and south of the Monroe Bypass includes too much individual
variability to provide reasonable comparisons.
For raw model assignment, it is appropriate to consider cumulative changes on the
corridor in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and changes on individual segments,
as previously discussed in Section 2.1. Examining corridor VMT presents overall and
regional traffic differences that more appropriately account for the inherent variability of
individual links based on different segment lengths, characteristics, loading points and
the impact of centroid connectors within the model. Potential reasons for variability
along individual segments are different socioeconomic growth assumptions, different
model networks and link characteristics, and different model methodologies for trip
distribution and assignment. To compare -Y- Line VMT, a segment distance of 0.5 miles
for each -Y- Line north and south of the Monroe Connector/Bypass was determined to
account for ramp offsets, laneage tie-ins and grade changes. By using the same
segment distance for all -Y- Lines, all facility segments were calculated similarly to
determine VMT. Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 7
percent decrease along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 19 percent increase along the
US 74 corridor and a 24 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM11v1.1), SE data (2009), and methodology, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still
generally attracting similar levels of demand as MRM06v1.1 and 2005 SE data used in
the 2030 Build forecast. In addition, the updated model is predicting more demand for
the existing US 74 corridor. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the MRM11v1.1
assigns similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the
Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 compared to MRM06v1.1.
2 https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/ProjectLevelTrafficForecasting.aspx
E2-10
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 11
3.2 Comparison of 2030 and 2035 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM11v1.1
The next necessary comparison is to compare Build Scenario model data from the 2030
MRM11v1.1 model to results from a 2035 MRM11v1.1 model run. This comparison was
made using the methodology previously described in Section 2.2. These results are
shown in Table 7. The data between the two model runs is based on the same set of
2009 SE data, and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2035 segment daily traffic
assignments exceed the 2030 MRM11v1.1 results. On the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, volumes increase from 7 percent to 11 percent and are
expected to range between 21,600 and 67,400 in 2035. On the existing US 74 facility,
volumes increase from 5 percent to 15 percent between the 2030 and 2035 model runs.
Individual -Y- Line facilities show increases between 4 percent and 57 percent between
2030 and 2035 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 9 percent
increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 7 percent increase along the US 74
corridor and a 7 percent increase cumulatively for -Y- Line locations. These increases
are not expected to impact the interchange footprints for the Monroe Connector/Bypass
facility.
The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase for all study area facilities between the 2030 and 2035 time
periods. Thus, 2030 Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected
to demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along the Monroe Connector/Bypass Facility,
existing US 74, and project study area -Y- Lines. This would further substantiate the
viability of and need for the project.
3.3 Comparison of 2035 Build MRM11v1.1 to 2030 Build MRM06v1.1 Model Data used
in the Build Scenario Traffic Forecast
As a final comparison, the 2035 MRM11v1.1 daily traffic assignment data was compared
to the original 2030 MRM06v1.1 data used in the development of the 2030 Build
Scenario forecasts. Along the new Monroe Connector facility, 2035 MRM11v1.1
assignments are higher than 2030 MRM06v1.1 data on the western portion of the
project, but are still less (between 1 percent and 19 percent smaller) than the 2030
MRM06v1.1 data on the eastern portion of the project. US 74 corridor results are higher
(for 30 of 31 segments) and have a greater variance range (3 percent to 90 percent
increases) for the 2035 MRM11v1.1 results compared to the 2030 MRM06v1.1 results. -
Y- Line data results have six segments showing increased daily assignment, seven
segments showing decreased assignment, and one segment unchanged between 2035
data and 2030 data. Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to
a 1 percent increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 27 percent increase along
the US 74 corridor and an 18 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
Similar to assessments made previously, potential reasons for the variability include the
different SE data sets, different model networks and network characteristics, and model
assignment methodologies employed in the two MRM versions. Even with the variability
of the results, the overall trend along the new location facility shows consistently
increasing volumes from east to west between the two model data sets. The model run
comparison also shows the potential traffic volume growth between 2030 and 2035
along existing US 74 even with the Monroe Connector facility. It is reasonable to
conclude that a traffic forecast for the Build Scenario that utilizes the latest MRM11v1.1
network and 2009 SE data in a similar manner to which they were employed for the
2008 and 2035 Build Scenario forecast would produce results that are to the same
magnitude, if not greater (based on the data examined in these three comparisons), than
E2-11
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 12
the original 2008 and 2035 Build Scenario forecast data. Comparative results are shown
in Table 7.
The differences between MRM06v1.1 and MRM11v1.1 raw model daily volume assignment,
and the current Build traffic forecasts indicate that the magnitude of traffic along the Monroe
Connector/Bypass and US 74 would still show the need for the project, and benefits to the
existing US 74 corridor from the project, as currently supported by the Build forecast utilized
in the project development process.
3.4 Comparison of 2030 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM06v1.1 to MRM14v1.0
As previously stated, Build MRM14v1.0 output was provided by CRTPO (formerly
MUMPO), which is compared and summarized in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.
The raw model daily volume assignment data from a run of MRM06v1.1 was compared
to a model run using the MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 SE data). It is important to note that
both model scenarios included the Monroe Connector/Bypass. For the new location
Monroe Connector/Bypass facility, MRM14v1.0 assigns higher traffic (4 percent to 32
percent) to the western portion of the Bypass than MRM06v1.1. Conversely,
MRM14v1.0 has lower projected daily assignments (13 percent to 38 percent decreases
from MRM06v1.1) in the central and eastern portions of the project. Along the existing
US 74 corridor, there is some variability between the two model results, with a general
trend of higher daily assignment in MRM14v1.0 along the western portion of US 74 and
lower daily assignment along the eastern portion (15 of 31 total segments have higher
volumes). In many cases, -Y- Line model volumes (the route intersecting the Monroe
Connector/Bypass) are lower in MRM14v1.0 than MRM06v1.1. However, direct
comparisons of individual -Y- Line volumes directly north and south of the Monroe
Bypass includes too much individual variability to provide reasonable comparisons.
Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 12 percent decrease
along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 4 percent increase along the US 74 corridor and
a 29 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM14v1.0), SE data (2013), and methodology, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still
generally attracting similar levels of demand as MRM06v1.1 and 2005 SE data used in
the 2030 Build forecast. In addition, the updated model is predicting more demand for
the existing US 74 corridor. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the MRM14v1.0
assigns similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the
Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 compared to MRM06v1.1.
3.5 Comparison of 2030 and 2040 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM14v1.0
The next necessary comparison is to compare Build Scenario model data from the 2030
MRM14v1.0 model to results from a 2040 MRM14v1.0 model run. This comparison was
made using the methodology previously described in Section 2.2. These results are
shown in Table 7. The data between the two model runs is based on the same set of
2013 SE data, and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2040 segment daily traffic
assignments exceed the 2030 MRM14v1.0 results. On the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, volumes increase from 3 percent to 14 percent and are
expected to range between 21,300 and 64,800 in 2040. On the existing US 74 facility,
volumes increase from approximately zero percent to 13 percent between the 2030 and
2040 model runs. Individual -Y- Line facilities show increases between 3 percent and 21
E2-12
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 13
percent between 2030 and 2040 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate
to a 10 percent increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 8 percent increase
along the US 74 corridor and a 13 percent increase cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
These increases are not expected to impact the interchange footprints for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility.
The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase for all study area facilities between the 2030 and 2040 time
periods. Thus, 2030 Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected
to demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along the Monroe Connector/Bypass Facility,
existing US 74, and project study area -Y- Lines. This would further substantiate the
viability of and need for the project
3.6 Comparison of 2040 Build MRM14v1.0 to 2030 Build MRM06v1.1 Model Data used
in the Build Scenario Traffic Forecast
As a final comparison, the 2040 MRM14v1.0 daily traffic assignment data was compared
to the original 2030 MRM06v1.1 data used in the development of the 2030 Build
Scenario forecasts. Along the new Monroe Connector facility, 2040 MRM14v1.0
assignments are higher than 2030 MRM06v1.1 data on the western portion of the
project, but are still less (between 2 percent and 30 percent smaller) than the 2030
MRM06v1.1 data on the eastern portion of the project. US 74 corridor results are
generally higher on the western portion of the corridor and generally lower on the
eastern portion and have a greater variance range (31 percent decrease to 55 percent
increase) for the 2040 MRM14v1.0 results compared to the 2030 MRM06v1.1 results. -
Y- Line data results have three segments showing increased daily assignment and nine
segments showing decreased assignment between 2040 data and 2030 data. Volumes
on Forest Hills School Road north and south of the proposed Monroe Bypass were not
included in the MRM14v1.0 output provided by CRTPO. Based on the overall corridor,
cumulative VMT changes equate to a 4 percent decrease along the Monroe
Connector/Bypass, a 12 percent increase along the US 74 corridor and an 20 percent
decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations. Similar to assessments made previously,
potential reasons for the variability include the different SE data sets, different model
networks and network characteristics, and model assignment methodologies employed
in the two MRM versions. Even with the variability of the results, the overall trend along
the new location facility shows consistently increasing volumes from east to west
between the two model data sets. The model run comparison also shows the potential
traffic volume growth along the western portion of existing US 74 and potential traffic
volume decreases along eastern portions of existing US 74 between 2030 and 2040
even with the Monroe Connector facility. It is reasonable to conclude that a traffic
forecast for the 2040 Build Scenario that utilizes the latest MRM14v1.0 network and
2013 SE data in a similar manner to which they were employed for the 2008 and 2035
Build Scenario forecast would produce results that are to the same magnitude, if not
greater (based on the data examined in these three comparisons), than the original 2008
and 2035 Build Scenario forecast data and would further substantiate the viability of and
need for the project. Comparative results are shown in Table 7.
4. How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect traffic volumes on the US 74
corridor?
Five separate scenarios were analyzed to assess the effects that the Monroe
Connector/Bypass may have on projected traffic volumes on existing US 74.
E2-13
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 14
4.1 Comparison of the Traffic Forecast Used in the NEPA Document
Table 8 compares data from the 2035 No-Build (Table 1, F) and 2035 Build (Table 1, C)
Traffic Forecast Scenarios along the existing US 74 corridor. The results show a
reduction in traffic along the corridor in the range of 600 to 34,200 vehicles per day from
the No-Build to Build Scenario. This equates to a range of 1 percent to 54 percent, with
an average reduction of 30 percent for overall corridor VMT.
4.2 Comparison of the 2030 MRM06v1.1 Model Results
Since the MRM06v1.1 (utilizing 2005 SE data) was used in the development of the 2008
WSA Traffic Forecast that is included in the NEPA documentation, comparisons of No-
Build and Build 2030 raw model daily volume assignments are included in Table 9. The
travel demand model is the primary source of making estimates of traffic diversion and
network traffic flow changes to/from existing facilities onto a new alignment facility such
as the Monroe Connector/Bypass. The only difference in the two travel demand models
is the inclusion of the Monroe Connector/Bypass links.
As shown in Table 9, construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass caused 2030 daily
traffic assignments to reduce along US 74 in the range of 4,800 to 21,900 vehicles per
day. This resulted in percentage reductions of 11 percent to 51 percent of daily traffic
along the corridor from 2030 No-Build data, and an average percent reduction of 31
percent for the overall corridor VMT.
4.3 Comparison of the 2035 MRM11v1.1 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM11v1.1 travel demand model, with updated 2009 SE data and network
information, a third comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2035. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous two
comparisons, 2035 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 5,300 vpd to 25,100
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 11 percent and 45 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 19 percent for the overall corridor VMT.
4.4 Comparison of the 2030 MRM14v1.0 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM14v1.0 travel demand model, with updated 2013 SE data and network
information, a fourth comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2030. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous
three comparisons, 2030 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 7,000 vpd to 20,900
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 14 percent and 57 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 24 percent for the overall corridor VMT.
E2-14
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 15
4.6 Comparison of the 2040 MRM14v1.0 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM14v1.0 travel demand model, with updated 2013 SE data and network
information, a fifth comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2040. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous four
comparisons, 2040 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 8,000 vpd to 18,800
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 15 percent and 56 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 24 percent for the overall corridor VMT.
Summarizing the five comparisons to forecast and travel demand model results made
above, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is expected to reduce traffic volumes along the
existing US 74 corridor for every corridor segment in the project study area in the Build
condition. Some traffic on existing US 74 is expected to divert to the new facility, thus
reducing congestion and improving traffic operations along the existing US 74 corridor with
construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
5. How could changes in socioeconomic data affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project?
Various regional socioeconomic forecasting processes and updates have occurred over the
last decade in association with updated versions of the Metrolina Regional Model. Table 10
summarizes the various socioeconomic data, file name, model version and final forecast
year. Section 4.0 of the Monroe Connector/Bypass Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Technical Report (Baker, May 2013) provides a detailed review of socioeconomic forecast
data.
Table 10 – Metrolina Regional Model Socioeconomic (SE) Data Versions
SE Data
(Forecast) Name
TAZ
File Name
Associated
Model Version
Final
Forecast Year
2005 SE Data SE_Year_taz2934
MRM05v1.0
MRM06v1.0
MRM06v1.1
2030
2008 SE Data SE_Year_081024 MRM08v1.0 2035
2008 Interim Data SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim None 2035
2009 SE Data SE_Year_091028
MRM09v1.0
MRM11v1.0
MRM11v1.1
2035
2013 SE Data* LANDUSE_TAZYEAR_131203 MRM14v1.0 2040
* Not available or included in ICE Technical Report (Baker, May 2013).
The Metrolina Regional Model, MRM11v1.1, was used as the base model to evaluate raw
model daily volume assignment for 2035 No-Build and Build conditions utilizing 2005, 2008
Interim and 2009 socioeconomic data. MRM05v1.0 and MRM06v1.1 were also utilized in
their respective traffic forecasts, as previously listed in Table 1. MRM08v1.0 and
MRM09v1.0 were not specifically utilized for traffic forecasts in the project development
process. 2008 socioeconomic data was not evaluated or compared in this memorandum,
since it was not used in any traffic forecast or traffic and revenue study. Referencing 2005
SE data raw model daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) as the baseline, 2008 Interim and
2009 SE data VMT along the US 74 corridor increased 5 percent for the No-Build and 2 to 3
E2-15
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 16
percent and 5 percent along the Monroe Bypass and US 74 for the Build, respectively.
Changes in raw model daily vehicles miles traveled are to be expected and appropriate
when comparing various socioeconomic data which are based on a variety of different
information, assumptions, time periods and horizon years. This comparison shows that
even while differences existing between various socioeconomic data, the resulting VMT are
generally consistent (within 5 percent along US 74 for the No-Build and within 2 to 3 percent
along the Monroe Bypass for the Build). Table 11 lists raw model daily volume assignment
for segments along the Monroe Connector/Bypass project and US 74 corridor for No-Build
and Build conditions with 2005, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data.
As of February 3, 2014, the MRM14v1.0 model and associated output was provided by
CRTPO (formerly MUMPO). In an effort to consider all available information, this memo was
revised to include a comparison of MRM14v1.0 raw model output for future Build scenarios
as discussed in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.
Based on a direct comparison of 2005 SE, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data, the
socioeconomic data sets have relatively similar volume assignments and corridor vehicle
miles traveled within 2 to 3 percent and 5 percent for the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US
74 corridor, respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that the differences between the three
sets of socioeconomic data would not substantially change the traffic forecast.
6. How could changes in the socioeconomic data related to indirect and cumulative
effects affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Based on the Monroe Connector/Bypass Indirect and Cumulative Effects Technical Report
(Baker, May 2013), socioeconomic data was developed for a 2030 Build RPA
(Recommended Preferred Alternative) scenario. This forecast of socioeconomic data is
referenced as 2009 ICE data. The Metrolina Regional Model, MRM11v1.1, was run with
one set of socioeconomic data (2009 SE data) for the 2030 No-Build scenario and two sets
of socioeconomic data (2009 SE data and 2009 ICE data) for the 2030 Build scenario. The
only difference between the two Build model runs was the change in socioeconomic data.
The raw model daily volume assignment along the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74
corridor were compared for each model run (Table 12). Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
vehicle hours traveled (VHT) were compared for each model run (Table 13).
The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment comparison between the two Build
model runs shows little variability in the results (Table 12). When comparing the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project links as a whole, the corridor VMT difference is less than five
percent, with no individual link having a difference of greater than ten percent or 3,300
vehicles per day (vpd). When comparing the US 74 corridor as a whole, the daily bi-directional
volume difference is less than three percent, with 24 out of 30 individual links
having a difference of less than five percent or 2,800 vpd. The eastern terminus of the
project, from E. Franklin Street to the Monroe Connector/Bypass terminus, projects daily bi-directional
volume differences greater than ten percent or 1,800 vpd to 4,700 vpd.
The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment comparison between the No-Build
and each of the two Build model runs shows the similar variability in the results (Table 12).
When comparing the US 74 corridor as a whole, the daily bi-directional volume differences
between the No-Build and the two Builds vary greatly. In the Build scenarios, all US 74
segment volumes are projected to decrease and corridor VMT decreases between 18 to 21
percent compared to the No-Build scenario. The raw travel demand model daily volume
E2-16
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 17
assignment clearly shows that US 74 traffic volumes and corridor VMT is expected to be
less with construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
The VMT and VHT values were compared between Union County, Mecklenburg County,
and the entire MRM11v1.1 model network (Table 13). The change in VMT and VHT in
Union County is 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively, while changes in Mecklenburg
County and across the MRM network are zero percent. Based on these minor network
assignment changes between 2009 SE data and 2009 ICE data, it is reasonable to conclude
the changes in SE data would not substantially change existing or future Build traffic
forecast results.
E2-17
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 18
Conclusions
1. Question – What traffic forecasts were developed during the Monroe Connector/Bypass
project development process and what were they used for?
Answer – Detailed listing of the traffic forecasts prepared during the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project development process and uses are included on pages 1-5.
2. Question – Are the current No-Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were
used?
Answer – Yes. Based on the assessment of 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes, the Metrolina
Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM11v1.1, utilizing 2009 socioeconomic data, 2030 and
2040 MRM14v1.0, utilizing 2013 socioeconomic data, existing US 74 corridor travel time
runs, and current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecast information, the No-Build traffic forecasts
are still valid for the purposes they were used.
3. Question – Are the current Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
Answer – Yes. The differences between MRM06v1.1, MRM11v1.1 and MRM14v1.0 raw
model daily volume assignment, and the Build traffic forecasts indicate that the magnitude of
traffic along the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 would still show the need for the
project, and benefits to the existing US 74 corridor from the project, as currently supported
by the Build forecast utilized in the project development process.
4. Question – How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect traffic volumes on the US 74
corridor?
Answer – When comparing Build and No-Build Traffic Forecast Scenarios and 2030
MRM06v1.1, 2035 MRM11v1.1, 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 raw model network assignment
data, the Build volumes are lower than the No-Build for every segment along the US 74
corridor for the forecast results and model run results.
5. Question – How could changes in socioeconomic data affect the traffic forecast for the
Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Answer – Based on a direct comparison of 2005 SE, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data, the
socioeconomic data sets have relatively similar volume assignments with cumulative
corridor volumes within two percent and five percent for the Monroe Connector/Bypass and
US 74 corridor, respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that the differences between the
three sets of socioeconomic data would not substantially change the traffic forecast.
6. Question – How do changes in the socioeconomic data related to indirect and cumulative
effects affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Answer – Changes in SE data cause relatively minor changes in traffic volumes in the MRM
model runs. Based on the comparison of 2030 Build MRM11v1.1 model runs using 2009
SE data and 2009 ICE SE data, the volume changes and percent changes are not
substantial. The change in VMT and VHT in Union County is 3 percent and 4 percent
respectively, while changes in Mecklenburg County and across the MRM network are
approximately zero percent. These variations in raw model daily volume assignment will not
affect the conclusions of the traffic forecasting development process.
E2-18
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 19
Table 2 – US 74 Corridor No-Build Traffic Forecast Volumes
Comparison Type No-Build Traffic Forecast Volumes (Sec. 1)
Year 2007 2008 2008 2030 2035 2035
Scenario No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build
Classification Forecast Forecast Forecast Update Forecast Forecast Forecast Update
ID # Source
MAB,
June 2008
WSA,
Sept.